SHIVALINGASWAMY Vs. CHIEF EX OFFICER TDB CHAMARAJANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Shivalingaswamy has challenged the validity of a notice Annexure-G dt. 19-9-1980 issued by the respondent Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Development Board, Chamarajanagar calling for a special meeting of the Harave Village Panchayat on 23-9-1980 for consideration of a notice of no confidence motion given by the required number of members against the petitioner who is the Chairman of the said Panchayat.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the consideration of the points raised in this petition may be stated as under : Eleven members of the Panchayat gave a notice of no confidence motion against the petitioner as per Annexure-A and requested to call for a meeting of the Panchayat in that connection. The Secretary of the Panchayat issued a notice dt. 21-7-1980 as per Annexure-D calling for a meeting of the panchayat on 28-7-1980 for the consideration of the motion of no confidence. The petitioner challenged the validity of the said notice in W.P. No.10744/80. This court, as per its order dt. 22-8-1980 Annexure-E, quashed the notice Annexure-D and directed the parties to take recourse in accordance with law in respect of the no confidence motion tabled against the petitioner. Even after the disposal of the above writ petition with a direction to the parties to take recourse in accordance with law in respect of the no confidence motion tabled against the petitioner, the petitioner did not call for the meeting of the Panchayat as required under sub-sec. (1) of S. 32 of the Act. Thereupon, the respondent herein called for a meeting of the Panchayat on 23-9-1980 as per Annexure-G dt. 19-9-1980 for the consideration of the no confidence motion tabled by the members against the petitioner. The petitioner in this petition questions the validity of the said notice.

(3.) It is contended by Shri B. M. Chandrashekaraiah, the learned advocate for the petitioner, that all the signatories to the notice of the no confidence motion were disqualified for being members of the Panchayat as they failed to pay the tax due from them to the panchayat and as such there was no obligation on the part of the petitioner to call for a meeting on the basis of their requisition as per Annexure-A and in that view his further submission is that the notice issued by the respondent for calling the meeting of the panchayat is not in accordance with law.