M. NARAYANA GOWDA v. MYS. REV. APP. TRIBUNAL — 1974 DIGILAW 53 (KAR)

( 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 and 227 of the constitution. 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 and 227 of the constitution. ( 4 ) THE short question for consideration is what in the premises, the total number of members of the Panchayat was, and whether the no-confidence motion parsed by eight of the members was valid. If the total number of members should be taken as twelve, the decision of the Divl. Commr. was perfectly valid, but if it should be taken as thirteen, his order was entirely without jurisdiction. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed that Thammegowda was a nominted member. The validity of his nomination was challenged and it was then pending consideration before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its interim order prevented him from casting his vote. He was not prevented from participating in the deliboration ot the meeting of the Panchayat. The result was for all prateical purposes, Thammegowda was to be considered as a member of the Panchayat but without a, right to vote. He did not cease to be e member merely because he was denied of his right to vote. The total number of members of the Panchayat was therefore thirteen and not twelve as held by the Divl. Commr. and the Tribunal. ( 6 ) THESE being the facts found, let me see what the bearing of the law is upon them Sub-sec. (2) of S-32 of the Karnataka V. P. and L. B. Act, 1959, provides : rule 7 of the No confidence Motion against Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a Panchayat (Procedure) Rules, 1959, provides : if the motion of no-confidence is carried by a majority, but such majority is less than two thirds of the. total number of members of the panchayat, the motion shall be deemed to have been defeated. The requirement of sub-sec. (2) of. S. 32 is that the motion against the chairman should be carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of the Panchayat. The same is the requirement of Rule 7. The total number of members in the present case was thirty. The motion was passed by eight members against five. Two thirds of thirteen is not eight. The same is the requirement of Rule 7. The total number of members in the present case was thirty. The motion was passed by eight members against five. Two thirds of thirteen is not eight. It is eight and two thirds. The motion should have been passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total members that means it should have been passed with a support of not less than nine members of the Panchayat. The Asst. Commr. was therefore right in rejecting the motion as it did not conform to, the statutory requirement. ( 7 ) A case similar to the one before me, came up for consideration before the Assam and Nagaland High Court, in Samiruddin Ahmed v. SDO Mangaldoi AIR. 1971 Assam 163,. S. 27 (l) (b) of the assam Gram Panchayat Act, 1959, is similar to the provisions. 32 (2) of the Karnataka V. P. and L. B. Act, 1959. The Assam and Nagaland High Court, while dealing with the question, observe : the words ' at least point to the same compulsive nature of the requirement of two-thirds of the total membership. The minimum two-thirds of thriteen members is not eight as arithmetically it is eight and two-thirds. . . . . the number eight cannot be considered as the requisite minimum in this case. Hence the meeting with the presence Off eight members out of thirteen on 3rd June 1969, is not constitutionally competent to pass the impugned resolution of no-confidence on the President, the resolution is, therefore, liable to be quashed. " ( 8 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed, the impugned orders of the tribunal and the Divl. Commr. are quashed and that of the Assistant. Commissioner is restored. No costs. --- *** --- .