WP(C) No. 25342 of 2009 · Kerala High Court

W.P.(C) No. 25342/092 3. The ground, if at all any, for a no confidence motion, is not amatter for consideration by any court or any authority, except that democratic house before which it is moved. Though it is suggested that section 57 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, provides a forum to challenge a decision on a no confidence motion, it does not appears to be so. All that could be challenged under that provision is a resolution. Whatemerges as the result of a meeting on the basis of a notice for moving amotion of no confidence is nothing but the result of a voting in a house and is not a resultant resolution or a decision as envisaged in section 57, for any superior authority to rectify or interfere with. Such power is unavailable with any authority. The fundamental theory of democracy would itself be annulled, if such interference is provided for. Democracy depends on the strength attained by votes and nothing else. The learned standing counselfor the Election Commission also pointed out the decision of this Court inN.J.Valsalam V. State of Kerala and others (2003(1) KLJ 583) in this regard. 4. Faced with the aforesaid situation, the petitioner's application before the Election Commission to interfere in the matter is pointed out. Thelearned counsel for the Election Commission states that on 7-9-2009, that request was rejected as not maintainable. I do no wish to express anything W.P.(C) No. 25342/093on that merely because, if so advised, the petitioner may challenge it. I do not find any ground to issue any direction, including to the 3rd respondent to consider any complaint of the petitioner in relation to the no confidence motion. 5. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed in limine. At the request on behalf of the petitioner, it is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner participating in the meeting in which the no confidence motion would be considered. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. mn.