GANGAPPA H K Vs. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the village of Hagalahalli, Ramanagaram Taluk, there is a village panchayat constituted and functioning under the Karnataka Village Panchayts and Local Boards Act of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 1959 Act'). The total number of members of the panchayat is stated to be 13. In the general elections held in the year 1974, petitioners, respondents-5 and 6 and several others were elected as members of the panchayat. In due course the 1st and 2nd petitioners were, elected as Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively of the Panchayat and were functioning in that capacity from the date of their election. On 22-1-1975 respondents-6 and 8 others served a notice of no-confidence motion against the petitioners under the provisions of the 1959 Act. As the Chairman of the Panchayat viz, petitioner-1 did not convene a meeting of the Panchayat within the time permitted by the 1959 Act to consider the notice of no-confidence motion, the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Tk Bd convened a meeting of the Panchayat to be held on 3-3-75 for the said purpose. Before the members of the Panchayat could meet and consider the no- confidence motion on 3-3-75, the petitioners approached the Govt under Sec.207 of the 1959 Act in a revision challenging the action of the Chief Executive Officer and sought for stay of the meeting of the Panchayat scheduled to be held on 3-3-75. In that revision petition, Govt by its order dt.2-3-75 stayed the holding of the meeting scheduled to be held en 3-3-75 to consider the no-confidence motion moved by respondent-6 and 8 others. Evidently having regard to the urgency, the stay order issued by Govt was communicated to the Block Development Officer, Ramanagaram, who is also the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Board, Ramanagaram, by telegram on 2-3-75, which was received by that Officer on the same day at 9-30 P.M. and the same reads thus :

(2.) Shri S. Shivaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that in view of the stay order passed by the Govt, it was not permissible for the Chief Executive Officer to hold the meeting of the Panchayat on 3-3-75 and for the Panchayat to pass the no-confidence resolution on that day against the petitioner and the proceedings thereto are a nullity and illegal. In support of his contention, Shri Shivaswamy strongly relied on the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mulraj v. Murti Raghunath Maharaj, AIR. 1967 SC. 1386.

(3.) Before I examine the contention of Shri S.Shivaswamy, it i desirable to dispose of the contentions urged by Shri K.N.Subba Redd learned Counsel for respcndents-5 and 6 in justification of the action of the Chief Executive Officer and the orders impugned in the writ petition