SAHEBAGOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the requisition to convene a meeting of the Mulasavatagi Mandal Panchayat to consider the resolution of no confidence in the appellants Is legal and valid.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are these: The total number of the Members of the Mulasavalagi Mandal Panchayat fixed according to the provisions of the Karna-taka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) is 26. Out of them 18 persons signed the requisition to convene a meeting of the Panchayat for considering the resolution expressing no confidence in the Pradhan and Upapradhan of the Panchayat. Questioning the legality of the said requisition and the meeting convened pursuant to it, the appellants presented the Writ Petitions.

(3.) The contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that out of 18 signatories to the requisition, two namely respondents-4 and 5 in the Writ Petitions were no longer Members of the Panchayat as they had been nominated by the Adhyaksha of the Zilla Parishad and their nominations had been declared invalid in the decision of this Court in ASHOK v. TAWANAPPA SIDDAPPA JAKKANNAVARA, ILR1989 KAR 123 , 1988 (3 )KarLJ562 . The learned Counsel also contended that among others there were five persons whose seats had become vacant by force of Section 12 of the Act as they had failed to attend three consecutive meetings of the Mandal Panchayat. The appellant's Counsel contended before the learned Judge that if seven persons were excluded the valid signatories to the requisition would be only 11 and as the total number of Members of the Mandal Panchayat was 26, the requisition itself was not in accordance with Section 47 of the Act which requires the signatures of atleast 50% of the total number of Members of the Mandal Panchayat and consequently, the meeting convened was also contrary to law.