M BHAKTHA VACHALAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONS filed challenging the elections to the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of which Robertsonpet Town Municipal Council scheduled to be held on 29-12-2001. Sri S. P. Shankar, appearing for the petitioner pointed out two objections touching the validity of the proposed election.

(2.) IT is contended that under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election Amendment Rules, 1996, seven days notice to the Councillors prior to the election date is mandatory and in the instant case, it is said that the first petitioner has received the notice on 24-12-2001 and thereby he has not been given seven clear days of notice as contemplated. Secondly, Sri S. P. Shankar contended that the second petitioner is a MLC and under Section 11 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act of 1964 is entitled to vote in the proceedings relating to the election of the President and Vice-President and he has not been given the notice of the proceedings. Therefore, it is contended that the proposed elections to be held are tainted by material irregularity vitiating the entire proceedings.

(3.) RELIED on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Narasimhiah v H. C. Singri Gowda and Others, it is contended that the words "giving of notice" has been interpreted thus: " "giving" of anything as ordinarily understood in the English language is not complete unless it has reached the hands of the person to whom it has to be given. In the eye of law however "giving" is complete in many matters where it has been offered to a person but not accepted by him. Tendering of a notice is in law therefore giving of a notice even though the person to whom it is tendered refuses to accept it. Thus as soon as the person with a legal duty to give the notice despatches the notice to the address of the person to whom it has to be given the giving is not complete".