The bench also directed State Chief Secretary to take all necessary steps to see that the meeting to be convened by the deputy director, takes place in accordance with law and without any obstruction or other impediments from any quarters.

The bench comprising Justices K K Usha and G Sivarajan said it was his duty to see that the meeting was held in a democratic manner and in a peaceful atmosphere.

The bench issued these directions while allowing a writ petition filed by Jacob Abraham and five other Opposition members in the 10-member panchayat committee seeking to quash the proceedings of theSeptember 1 meeting convened by the Deputy Director of Panchayats to consider the no-confidence motion against Joshy.

The petitioners could not attend the meeting as they were obstructed by CPM supporters. An estimated 3,000 CPM workers had gathered in front of the panchayat office and prevented the police from bringing the Opposition members for the meeting which was scheduled to be held at 11 am. Though the Opposition members were armed with a court order directing adequate police protection for them to attend the meeting, they were held up at the Payyavoor police station.

Meanwhile, the Deputy Director convened the meeting and dissolved it on the ground that it lacked quorum, thus, making the Opposition members unable to bring the no-confidence motion for the subsequent six months. He treated the no-confidence motion as rejected, without being discussed.

Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act provides that a meeting convened for considering a no-confidence motion shall not be adjourned exceptfor reasons beyond human control. It is also provided that the quorum for such a meeting shall be one-half of the elected members of the panchayat. If the motion is not carried by majority or the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the president, vice-president etc shall be received until after the expiry of six months from the date of the meeting.

The situation at Payyavoor was such that it was beyond the control of the deputy director to ensure the presence of petitioners at the meeting venue at the appointed time so as to convene the meeting. So it was a clear case where he should have adjourned the meeting for reasons beyond his control. He should not have proceeded with the meeting or dispersed the same for want of quorum.

Even if the deputy director had dispersed the meeting for want of quorum in the facts and circumstances of the case, the bar on a fresh motion within six months cannot be applied.

The meeting could not beheld only because those who were opposing the motion obstructed the entry of the petitioners into the venue of the meeting. The bar was applicable only in respect of a meeting held under normal circumstances and not in cases where by the deliberate act of one group the other group was obstructed from attending the meeting, resulting in lack of quorum.