M KRISHNAPPA Vs. CHIEF OFFICER TMC VIJAYAPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioners in W.P. no. 38636 of 1992 have sought for quashing the meeting notice dated 7th december, 1992 - annexure-a - issued by the first respondent and to direct respondent no. 1 not to hold the meeting pursuant to the said notice.

(2.) briefly stated, the facts leading to W.P. no. 38636 of 1992 are:the petitioners are the president and vice-president of the vijayapura town municipal council respectively and respondent no. 1 is the chief officer of the said municipal council. The petitioners were elected as the president and vice-president on 25th may, 1990. The petitioners have challenged the special meeting convened by the first respondent on 19-12-1992as per annexure-a to move vote of no confidence against them, contending that notice annexure-a issued by the first respondent is without authority of law. It is stated that no notice as required under law for the purpose of convening a special meeting for the purpose of moving a no confidence was given by the members to the first petitioner - the president. A notice dated 27th november, 1992 allegedly signed by ten members of the municipal council was given to the deputy commissioner, Bangalore rural district, requesting him to convene a meeting for the purpose of moving a motion of no confidence against the petitioners. On the basis of that notice, the first respondent has convened the meeting by the notice-annexure-a. The petitioners further contend that the procedure for convening the special general meeting or the special meeting as provided under section 47(2) and (3) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short 'the act') has to be followed. The calling of the meeting by the first respondent in contravention of the said provisions is wholly without authority of law and injurious to the rights and interests of the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) i.a.i. was filed for impleading by ten municipal councillors, who had givennotice to the deputy commissioner and la. Ii was filed for vacating the interim order granted by this court on 17-12-1992, by the same applicants. On 11-1-1993, i.a. I was allowed and the ten applicants in the said la. Were allowed to come on record as additional respondents. Since the writ petition was taken up for hearing itself order on i.a. ii was not passed.