M NARAYANA GOWDA Vs. MYS REV APP TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.Narayana Gowda the petitioner is the Chairman of the Rachenahalli Group Panchayat, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore Taluk. He challenges in this petition under Art.226, the validity of the order of the Divl. Commr. directing his removal, from the office of Chairman of the Panchayat.

(2.) The Panchayat consisted of thirteen members, qut of whom one was a nominated member by name Thammegowda. At a meeting of the Panchayat held on 9-12-1969, a resolution expressing no confidcnce against the petitioner was moved and passed by eight members, Thereafter a report, was sent to the Asst. Commr as required under sub-sec. (2) of S.32 of Karnataka V.P. and L.B. Act 1959. The Asst. Commr. did not act upon that resolution. He declared that it shall be deemed to' have been defeated as provided by Rule 7 of the No Confidence Motion against Chairman or Vice Chairman of a Panchayat (Procedure) Rules, 1959.

(3.) Respondent 5 took up the master before the Divl. Commr , Barigalore who by his order impugned in this petition deplaned that the No confidence Motion was validly passed against the Chairman who should be removed from bis office. The Divl. Commr. was Of the opinion that the number of members of the Panchayat to be reckoned for the purpose of passing the motion of no-confidence should be twelve and not thirteen, since the nominated member Thammegowda was not permitted to vote by an interim order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. It may be relevant to state that the nomination of Thammegowda was challenged in a revision petition before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal during the pendency of that revision, made an interim order stating that the said member could be present at the meeting of the Panchayat but he should not vote. The Divisional Commr. was therefore of the opinion that Thammegowda should be excluded from the total strength of the Panchayat, since he was denied of his right to vote on any matter at the Panchayat meeting. Aggrieved by the order of the Divl Commr. the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, while affirming the order of the Divl. Commr dismissed the revision petition. Hence he has approached this Court under'Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution.