THIMMAMMA Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are by persons holding the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Turuvekere Taluk Panchayat to avoid facing a no confidence motion for the consideration of which a meeting has been called for in terms of a notice dt. 23. 8. 2004 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Turvekere, (copy at Annexure-C ).

(2.) THE 1stpetitioner the President and the 2ndpetitioner the Vice-President of Turvekere Taluk Panchayat are weary of facing the no confidence motion, that they have found that the notice bristles with several irregularities, that the very notice according to them is not by a person who is empowered or expected in law to all for such a meeting and as such have approached this Court for quashing the same.

(3.) SRI Nargund, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the petitioners in fact have the support of the members of the Panchayat that in fact a requisition notice had been moved by some of the members of the Panchayat in terms of Annexure-A, that many of those members did meet the President and the President had occasion to satisfy the members that he will be taking action in terms of government schemes for extending the benefits to the people of the Panchayat, that the petitioners were given to the understanding that the members were satisfied with the explanation and as such, they could be continue in their posts, that the notice in fact had become defunct but notwithstanding, to the shock and surprise of the petitioners, the Chief Executive Officer, Turvekere Taluk Panchayat has nevertheless issued the meeting notice at Annexure-C though it was not called for not was it the function of the Chief Executive Officer as he can assume jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer as he can assume jurisdiction only if there is inaction on the part of the President and not otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Chief Executive Office has gone further to issue directions to the members to elect one amongst such persons to preside over such a meeting which is not within his domain. In elaborating this ground, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that until and unless the requisite number of members who point out to the Chief Executive Officer that the President is inactive in respect of a request made by them and in turn make a request to call for a meeting, the Chief Executive Officer cannot call for a meeting, that in the instant case a notice that had been issued earlier was only addressed to the President and the members not having sought for a meeting through a request made to the Chief Executive Officer on the premise that there was default on the part of the President, the chief Executive Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction and that he could not have acted upon a requisition addressed to the President.