S N KENDAGANNAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since hearing the State in this matter is proper, Smt. Nimmy Swamy, learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 1, 2 and 5.

(2.) Sri G.V. Guruvcgowda, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.N. Kamath, learned Counsel for the Caveator and Smt. Nimmy Swamy, learned Government Pleader who took notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 5 are heard in the matter.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that Hanchipura Mandal Panchayat of Heggadadcvana Kote Taluk, Mysore District, consists of 24 members, of which two are nominated. Out of 24 members, 16 members belong to Janata Dal Party and 8 members belong to Congress (I). The petitioner also belongs to Janata Dal. Because of some misunderstanding between the petitioner and some of his colleagues who won on Janata Dal ticket, along with his political enemies, namely, members belong to Congress (I), gave a notice to the Assistant Commissioner as required under Section 47(1) of the Act requesting him a meeting be convened so as to express no confidence against the petitioner to continue as Pradhana of the Mandal Panchayat. The Assistant Commissioner issued a notice dated 12-7-1990 convening a meeting at the request of the Secretary fixing the date as 6-8-1990 at 11 a.m. This is the notice which is now under challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner on the following grounds: (1) As per Section 47(3) of the Act, the notice to convene a meeting of no confidence could have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner and not by the Assistant Commissioner. Thus the notice at Annexure-A is without jurisdiction; (2) The request made by the members to convene a meeting of no confidence was not in the prescribed form, namely, Form No. 1 or Form No. 2. Thus there was noncompliance of mandatory requirement of making a request in the prescribed form; (3) Respondents 6 to 15 who belong to the Janata Dal to which the petitioner belongs, in view of Section 3 of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987, are disqualified as the said respondents knowing fully well that the petitioner and they belong to one party, elected on the same party ticket, signed the notice to convene a meeting without obtaining prior permission of the President or Secretary of the Janata Dal of either district or local unit. Thus, respondents 6 to 15 have violated the mandatory requirement of Section 3(l)(b) of the said Act. The request that was earlier made by members of the Mandal Panchayat was not a valid one as the request of respondents 6 to 15 could not have been considered by the Assistant Commissioner in view of having incurred disqualification. Lastly it was contended the notice at Anncxure-A though dated 12-7-1990 was actually served on the petitioner only on 27-7-1990. Thus no sufficient time was given to the petitioner to persuade the members particularly those belong to his party. On these grounds the petitioner prays that the writ petition be allowed quashing the notice at Anncxurc-A.