DAMAYANTHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the President of Vitala Town Panchayath. The election to the Town Municipality was held in the year 2016 where 18 members were elected from different wards for a period of five years. The petitioner was elected as the President in the election held on 14.01.2019 and she took charge on 16.01.2019. Her grievance is that the respondent-Chief Officer of the Town Panchayath has issued a meeting notice dated 02.03.2021 scheduling a special general meeting on 12.03.2021 at 11.00 a.m., following a request to move No Confidence Motion given by 12 members of the Town Panchayat against the petitioner.

(2.) The main ground on which the writ petition is filed is that in terms of the first proviso to Section 42(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, ten days' notice has to be given of the intention to move the resolution and this mandatory provision has not been followed. It is submitted that the notice is dated 02.03.2021 and the meeting is scheduled to be held on 12.03.2021 and therefore in terms of the General Clauses Act, if the date on which the notice is issued is excluded, only 9 days or lesser than 9 days notice is given.

(3.) In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of a Division Bench in the case of Janardhana Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur , in W.A.No.2392/1982 decided on 01.10.1982 reported in the short notes of cases 1982 Kar.L.J. 60. It is submitted that the Division Bench has held that atleast 10 days notice of the no confidence motion is required to be given and if there is no clear 10 days notice between the issuance of the notice and the holding of the meeting, any resolution passed at a meeting called before the expiry of 10 days, whatever may be the resolution of the meeting, cannot be considered as valid. It was held that a resolution passed in breach of a statutory provision cannot be upheld. The High Court in exercise of its discretion cannot refuse to quash the invalid resolution.