REVANASIDDAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the Order dated 22-9-1992 passed in Writ Petition No. 18932 of 1992. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Hence, the petitioners have come up in appeal.

(2.) In the writ petition, the petitioners sought for quashing the notice dated 18-6-1992 produced as Annexure C in the writ petition issued by respondent 3. They also sought for a declaration that the resolution dated 19-6-1990 passed by the City Municipal Council, Bijapur, produced as Annexure-A in the writ petition, is null and void. The notice (Annexure C) related to holding of elections to the Office of President and the VicePresident of the City Municipal Council, Bijapur. Annexure A, the resolution of the City Municipal Council, related to its consent for limiting the term of the President and the Vice-President for a period of two years from the date of assumption of the office. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition holding that there was a resolution passed by the City Municipal Council, Bijapur, in its meeting held on 19-6-1990 consenting for limiting the term of the President and the Vice-President of the City Municipal Council, for a period of two years from the date of assumption of office and that there was nothing wrong with the calendar of events issued by respondent 3 for holding election to the Office of the President and the Vice-President of the City Municipal Council, Bijapur. The learned single Judge has also rejected the contention of the appellant-petitioners that the resolution could not have been passed without issuing the agenda, and therefore, the resolution was null and void.

(3.) Before us, the learned senior Advocate, Sri. S. Vijayashankar put forth the following contentions. The first contention is that without the inclusion of the subject in the agenda of the meeting, the City Municipal Council could not have taken up an important subject like consenting to limit the term of office of the President and the Vice-President for a period of two years from the date of assumption of office and as such, the resolution passed by the City Municipal Council, Bijapur, on 19-6-1990 is null and void. The second contention is that there was no resolution as such passed by the City Municipal Council consenting to limit the term of office of the President and the Vice-President of the City Municipal Council and the resolution No. 73 dated 19-6-1990 is only a subsequent insertion in the proceedings of the City Municipal Council, Bijapur, held on 19-6-1990.