SUBBAMMA Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER NANJANGUD PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were elected as the members of the Taluk Panchayat. Subsequently, they were elected as Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the taluk Panchayat respectively on 19th March, 2002. The term of office is twenty months and it expires on 19th November, 2003. Thirteen members of the Taluk Panchayat on 7th February, 2002 requested the petitioners to call for a special meeting to consider the resolution regarding want of confidence in the petitioner. The first petitioner did not call for the meeting. A requisition was given to the Chief Officer to call for a meeting and a meeting notice was issued on 15th February, 2003. The said meeting notice was challenged by the petitioners before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7350 of 2003. The said writ petition was allowed. The meeting notice dated 15th February, 2003 was quashed and this court issued the following directions:

(2.) THEREAFTER, in pursuance of the aforesaid order, 13 members of the panchayat issued a notice to the first petitioner on 28th March, 2003 calling upon her to call for a special meeting of the Taluk Panchayat to consider the no confidence motion expressed by them. The said notice was received by 28th March, 2003 itself, a copy of which is produced as annexure-B. The first petitioner with a view to ascertain as to whether the 13 persons have signed any such notice of no confidence motion, issued notice to each of the members separately on 9th April, 2003 requesting them to confirm whether they have actually signed notice on 28th March, 2003, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-C. As the first petitioner was expected to call for a meeting within 8 days from the date of receipt of the requisition and instead wrote a letter on 9th April, 2003, the intention became clear and therefore, respondents 2 to 18 on 11th April, 2003 issued notice to the first respondent complaining that the first petitioner has not called for a special meeting within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice dated 28th March, 2003 and therefore, they called upon him to call for a special general meeting for considering the resolution expressing want of confidence in her. Acting on the basis of the said requisition, first respondent has issued a notice on 16th april, 2003 calling for a meeting on 25th April, 2003 for expressing want of confidence in her, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-E. The petitioners in these writ petitions are challenging Annexure-E firstly, on the ground that the said meeting to be convened by the Executive Committee also should be called within 15 days from the date of request made by respondents 2 to 18 to the first petitioner to convene a meeting and secondly, on the ground that it is the respondents 2 to 18 who have to fix the date of meeting and the same cannot be left to the discretion of the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioners seek quashing of the said meeting notice Annexure-E.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits, as the said meeting notice issued is contrary to Section 141 (2) (a) of the Karnataka panchayat Raj Act, 1993, it is illegal and liable to be quashed.