M C MARNAKE GOWDA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very piquant question which is fairly interesting arises for consideration in this writ petition. The question is when a meeting scheduled to be held on a particular date at a particular hour could neither be commenced nor held at that time for the simple reason that the person who had convened the meeting and had necessarily to preside over that meeting was physically not present in the meeting having been summoned to attend a Court proceedings earlier which proceeding later resulted in that very person being injuncted from holding the meeting scheduled on that day.

(2.) The petitioner says the remiss in the holding of the meeting by the person concerned on the date and at the time specified earlier must now enure to his benefit so that he may have a further innings to play out as a Pradhan of the Mandal Panchayat whose position was seriously threatened when a no confidence motion tabled by a large number of his cohorts had to be discussed in the meeting referred to hereinbefore.

(3.) The facts required to be stated to complete the narrative are as follows : The Mandal Panchayat at Ankanahalli nestling somewhere in T. Narasipur Taluk of Mysore District was presided over by the petitioner as its Pradhan. The Pradhan suddenly found the ground beneath him being pulled and his tenure of office suffering the prospect of being cut-short when for some reason or the other a large number of irate members of the panchayat tabled a no confidence motion against him before the Asst. Commissioner, Mysore Division, Mysore and asked the Asst. Commissioner to fix a meeting of the Mandal Panchayat to enable them to move the said no confidence motion against the petitioner. That it is the Asst. Commissioner who has the authority to take notice of the no confidence motion, receive it, when tendered and to put the machinery in action are all matters not in dispute. The Asst. Commissioner as expected of him after receipt of the no confidence motion a copy of'which is produced at Annexure-A, issued a meeting notice dated 11th of July, 1991 under Annexure-B scheduling a meeting of the members of the Panchayat to be held on the 7th of August, 1991 at 11-30 a.m. in the office of the Mandal Panchayat in question. If everything had proceeded according to plan the meeting on the 7th of August, 1991 would have been held as convened by the Asst. Commissioner under the meeting notice at Annexure-B, with the fate of the petitioner decided one way or the other. But curiously none of these things did take place by reason of a supervening reason arising out of a suit said to have been filed by some one in the Court of Munsiff, T. Narasipur in O.S. 243/1991. In the said suit a prayer for an ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining defendant No. 1 none other than the A.C. from holding the meeting under Annexure-B was made but the learned Judge having demurred against that request chose to issue emergent notice to defendant No. 1 by telegram which is rather curious. But, nonetheless, that telegram was received by the Asst. Commissioner who upon acquainting himself with the contents of the telegram summoning him to the Court of the Munsiff on the next day, hurried to the Court in answer to the summons. So on 7-8-1991 the Asst. Commissioner who was supposed to preside over the meeting under Annexure-B was before the Court of Munsiff, T. Narasipur and is borne out from the entry in the order-sheet of the case, produced herein as Annexure-R1. Apparently this order was passed at on the forenoon sitting of the Court. In this manner, after the first defendant, the Asst. Commissioner, after having presented himself before the Court as directed, later rushed back to the place of meeting, told such of the members who were still present at the venue that the Court had stopped him from conducting the meeting and, therefore, he was adjourning it. All this is found at Annexure-C indicating that the Asst. Commissioner had disclosed the factum of the Court having restrained him from holding the meeting by means of an injunction, to the members who were present in the meeting hall of Mandal Panchayat at 12-45 p.m. He appears to have taken a roll-call of the members present and absent as (sic) from the record at Ex. C. It shows that only five out of the 25 panchayat members were present with 20 being absent. The declaration found at Annexure-C in which the Asst. Commissioner stated that the meeting was postponed to a further date as also the further notice issued by the Asst. Commissioner seeking to hold the adjourned meeting on the 15th of October, 1991 as per Annexure-D are challenged by the Pradhan who is still in office.