(1.) THE petitioner is the Adhyaksha of the 2nd respondent Taluk panchayat 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Taluk panchayat gave a notice to the Adhyaksha expressing their intention to move the motion of no confidence as against the petitioner. This notice was received in the office of the Adhyaksha on 31. 3. 2003, as seen from the records produced by the learned Government Pleader. On the very same day, it appears, the said notice was brought to the notice of the petitioner. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has not taken any steps to call for the special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence. But the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent by his notice dated 8. 4. 2003, called for the meeting of the Taluk Panchayat fixing the date of meeting as 16. 4. 2003. On 16. 4. 2003, the motion was passed by majority. This decision of the taluk Panchayat on the motion of no confidence moved against the petitioner has been questioned by the petitioner in this petition.
(2.) SRI A. Nagarajappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 141 (2) (a) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short the Act), the Adhyaksha is required to call for the meeting on any motion signed by 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Panchayat within 15 days from the date of receipt of such request. But in the instant case, it is submitted that the executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat even before the expiry of 15 days has called for the meeting on 8. 4. 2003 and therefore any decision taken on the basis of the notice issued by the Executive officer is illegal.
(3.) SRI M. Papanna, learned Counsel for Respondent -2 submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in calling for meeting by the executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, since no steps were taken by the Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat to call for the meeting. The learned Government Pleader also supports the submission made by Sri Papanna, learned Counsel.