M V SHANTHAKUMARI Vs. JAGALUR TALUK PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH these petitions are posted for consideration of Interlocutory application, as per the request of the learned counsel on both sides, the main matter itself has been taken up for final disposal.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 8470 of 2001 is filed by the Adhyaksha and writ petition No. 8846 of 2201 is filed by the Upadhyaksha of Jagalur Taluk Panchayat questioning the validity of the Meeting Notice dated 14-2-2001 issued by the 1st respondent and for quashing the resolution dated 22-2-2001 accepting the "no Confidence" Motion against both the petitioners. Since the facts and the question of law raised in both the petitions are the same, both the writ petitions are taken up together for consideration.

(3.) IT is undisputed that Jagalur Taluk Panchayat consists of 13 elected members apart from the nominated members as per the provisions of Section 120 of the Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were elected as Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha on 13-7-2000 and their term fixed as per law as 20 months. Thereafter, on 15-1-2001 respondents 3 to 10 who are also elected members gave a requisition to the Adhyaksha to convene a Special Meeting of the Taluk Panchayat, as they proposed to move "no Confidence" Motion against both Adhaksha and Upadhyaksha. Accordingly, the Executive Officer/respondent 2 issued a notice dated 25-1-2001 intimating all the Members that such a Special Meeting would be held on 2-2-2001. Aggrieved by this notice the petitioner (in W. P. No. 8470 of 2001) approched this Court in Writ Petition No. 4093 of 2001. This Court on 1-2-2001 while issuing notice as to why rule nisi should not be issued granted interim order of stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the Special Meeting Notice dated 25-1-2001. It is to be mentioned here itself that the said writ petition was finally disposed of on 7-2-2001, vide Annexure D, holding that as the Notice (Annexure B) became infructuous because of the interim order granted, the said writ petition itself does not survive for consideration. It is thereafter a fresh notice dated 14-2-2001 came to be issued by the 2nd respondent fixing the date of meeting as 22-2-2001. On that day, i. e. 22-2-2001, a meeting was held and a resolution came to be passed accepting the "no Confidence Motion" against the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petitions.