Judgment :- 1. The Kodiyathur Panchayat in the Kozhikode District was ordered to be bifurcated as per a notification, Ext. P2, issued by the Government of Kerala on 4-6-1975. The above notification was challenged in O.P. No. 2842 of 1975 by a member of the Panchayat on the ground that it contravened the proviso to S.3 (1) of the Kerala Panchayats Act (in short 'the Act'). Under the said proviso, before issuing any notification cancelling an earlier notification constituting a Panchayat, the Government should give a reasonable opportunity to the Panchayat concerned for showing cause against the proposal and should also consider the explanations and objections, if any, of the said Panchayat. This court refused to exercise jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution on the ground that the notification being not a nullity the person affected by it, viz., the Panchayat alone could challenge its validity and a member of the Panchayat had no locus standi to file the petition. The Original Petition was dismissed on 5-12-75. (For more facts and judgment see Mohammed Haji v. Unni Moyi (1976 KLT. 106). In the meanwhile, on 6-11-75 when a meeting of the Panchayat was held, Ext. P3 resolution was passed authorising the Vice-President of the Panchayat to question Ext P2 notification in appropriate proceedings before this Court. The Vice-President, in pursuance of the above resolution, filed O.P. No. 5224 of 1975 challenging Ext. P2 notification and praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the said notification and for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction for the issue of notice under S.3 of the Panchayat Act before any steps are taken for bifurcating the Panchayat. The State Government as the third respondent contested the petition. In the counter filed, it is stated that the decision to bifurcate the Panchayat was actually taken in pursuance of the resolutions of the Panchayat and representations by the President thereof for expediting the steps for bifurcation. Exts. R1 and R2 are resolutions passed by the Panchayat demanding a bifurcation on the ground that the existing Panchayat covers an unwieldy area where there are no transport facilities. These resolutions were parsed in the year 1972. Steps for bifurcation could not be taken then for more reasons than one. Exts. R1 and R2 are resolutions passed by the Panchayat demanding a bifurcation on the ground that the existing Panchayat covers an unwieldy area where there are no transport facilities. These resolutions were parsed in the year 1972. Steps for bifurcation could not be taken then for more reasons than one. The Election Commission had issued instructions that no further changes in the extent of the existing Panchayat should be made till the delimitation of the Assembly constituencies on the basis of the 1971 Census was completed. The Panchayats in existence on 1-1-1973 were to be taken into account for the purpose of delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies. Ext R3 dated 13-2-73 is the letter received by the Director of Panchayats to the above effect. On 20-8-74 another representation was received by the Government from the President of the Kodiyathur Panchayat for finalisation of the steps for bifurcation of the Panchayat. When the impediments were over a draft notification was prepared by the Director of Panchayats. The Government accepted the draft and the notification was published in the Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 4-6-76. The bifurcation was to take effect and the proposed Panchayats were to come into existence on 16-6-1975. The State took the stand that since the bifurcation was effected at the instance of the Panchayat, there has been no violation of the proviso to S.3 of the Act and the notification is not liable to be cancelled. It was contended that the Vice-President is not invested with authority under the Act and had no locus standi to represent the Kodiyathur Panchayat. The State also challenged the validity of the resolution passed on 6-11-75 authorising the Vice-President to take steps for the cancellation of Ext. P2 notification. A learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the Original Petition holding that Ext. P3 resolution dated 6-11-75 authorising the Vice-President to move this court was invalid as such, the petitioner had no locus standi to move this court for the cancellation of Ext. P2 notification. The court accordingly dismissed the petition. The propriety of the dismissal is challenged in this appeal. 2. O.P. 5224 of 1975 is no doubt intended for the cancellation of Ext. P2 notification; but the question of cancellation would arise only if the appellant, the Vice-President of the Panchayat had authority to file the petition. P2 notification. The court accordingly dismissed the petition. The propriety of the dismissal is challenged in this appeal. 2. O.P. 5224 of 1975 is no doubt intended for the cancellation of Ext. P2 notification; but the question of cancellation would arise only if the appellant, the Vice-President of the Panchayat had authority to file the petition. From the counter of the third respondent, it is made out that a member of the Panchayat Committee challenged Ext. P3 resolution authorising the appellant to move this court and wrote to the 1st respondent, District Panchayat Officer that funds for the prosecution of the litigation should not be sanctioned. The objection of the particular member was that the resolution was passed in his absence and without prior notice to him as contemplated in the rules of the meeting. The resolution was not included in the agenda for the business of the meeting as directed in the rules relating to holding of meetings of the Panchayat Committee. Ext R5, the agenda for the meeting does not include the subject. It appears that the resolution was admitted after the committee began its sitting. It was taken up immediately. Nobody then present at the meeting opposed the resolution and it was passed. But two of the members came late and after the passing of the resolution. It also appears that the two absentee members sent representations to the Director of Panchayats challenging the validity of the resolutions. The said representations are not before court. 3. Under the general law relating to meetings no business of an important nature is to be taken up at a meeting of a council or a committee unless notice is given in respect of it to all the concerned members. In other words, notice of meetings should specify the business to be transacted. "When notice is given that particular business will be transacted at a meeting, no other business can be embarked upon at that meeting unless the whole body corporate is present and consents". (See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. Vol.9, Para.1296). The following paragraph in Vice-Chancellor v. S. K. Ghosh (AIR. 1954 SC. 217) also deals with the point: "The reason for the stricter rule laid down in the cases cited before us is that though an incorporated body like a University is a legal entity it has neither a living mind nor voice. Vol.9, Para.1296). The following paragraph in Vice-Chancellor v. S. K. Ghosh (AIR. 1954 SC. 217) also deals with the point: "The reason for the stricter rule laid down in the cases cited before us is that though an incorporated body like a University is a legal entity it has neither a living mind nor voice. It can only express its will in a formal way by a formal resolution and so can only act in its corporate capacity by resolutions properly considered, carried and duly recorded in'he manner laid down by its constitution. If its rules require such resolutions to be moved and passed in a meeting called for the purpose, then every member of the body entitled to take part in the meeting must be given notice so that he can attend and express his views. Individual assents given separately cannot be regarded as equivalent to the assent of a meeting because the incorporated body is different from the persons of which it is composed Hence, an omission to give proper notice even to a single member 'in these circumstances' would invalidate the meeting and that in turn would invalidate resolutions which purport to have been passed as it. But this is only when such inflexible rigidity is imposed by the incorporating constitution." It follows that a resolution passed on a subject not included in the agenda of a meeting would be good only if all the members of the committee are present at the meeting and if all of them waive the formality of notice. 4. There are rules framed under the Kerala Panchayats Act for convening meeting of the Panchayat committee and also in the matter of moving resolutions at the Panchayat meetings. R.4 of the Kerala Panchayats (Proceedings of Panchayat Meetings and Committees) Rules, reads: "4(1) No meeting shall be held unless notice of the day and time when the meeting is to be held and of the business to be transacted thereat has been given at least three clear days before the day of the meeting (2) In cases of urgency, the President may convene a meeting on giving shorter notice than that specified in sub-rule (1). (3) A copy of the notice issued under sub-rule (I) or sub-rule (2) shall also be affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Office. (3) A copy of the notice issued under sub-rule (I) or sub-rule (2) shall also be affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Office. Rule 5 deals with the agenda of the meeting and is as follows: "The agenda for the meeting shall be prepared by the Executive Authority in consultation with the President. All items proposed by the President and the Executive Authority shall be included in the agenda." It is clear from the rules that before any matter is taken up for discussion in a meeting of the Panchayat committee, the members are entitled to notice. In other words, no business is to be transacted in a meeting unless notice thereof is given in advance to the members There is no case for the petitioner that the subject relating to the bifurcation of the Panchayat was included in the agenda in the meeting held on 6-11-1975 or that all the members were informed in advance that the said subject would be taken up. The learned counsel for the appellant placed much reliance on the R.2 and 4 of the Kerala Panchayats (Moving of Resolutions at Panchayat Meetings) Rules, 1962 The said provisions run as follows: "2. A member who wishes to move a resolution shall give ten clear days' notice of his intention in writing to the President and shall forward with such notice a copy of the resolution which he wishes to move: . Provided that the President may allow a resolution to be included on the list of business with shorter notice than ten days. X X X 4. The President shall decide on the admissibility of a resolution and may disallow any resolution or part thereof which in his opinion, contravenes the provisions of Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 (Act 32 of 1960) or the rules made thereunder and his decision shall be final." 5. It is argued that even though ordinarily, a person who wishes to move a resolution should give advance information to the President, it is within the powers of the President to admit a resolution dispensing such advance notice. The argument is that since the President admitted the resolution in spite of the fact that prior notice was not given it is not open to the members to challenge the validity of the resolution. There is not much weight in the contention. The argument is that since the President admitted the resolution in spite of the fact that prior notice was not given it is not open to the members to challenge the validity of the resolution. There is not much weight in the contention. R.2 and 4 referred to above, deal only with the moving of resolutions and the discretion of the President to include in the list of business a resolution for which ten clear days' notice as required by the first paragraph of R.2 had not been given. Even the proviso only permits the President to allow a resolution to be included in the list of business with shorter notice than ten days The power of the President under the proviso does not affect the right of the members to get advance information about a resolution and that resolution, it is clear from the rule, has to be included in the list of business to be dealt with at the meeting. In other words, a resolution could be validly moved only if the subject thereof has been included in the business of the meeting. As we see it, R.4 has no application to the issues that we have to decide. The rule permits the President to rule out a resolution which is included in the list of business, if the resolution contravenes the provisions of the Act. Every member has the right to challenge the decision taken in a meeting, without the requisite notice as contemplated in the rules. The purpose of giving such notice is to enable the members to have advance information about the subjects to be discussed. It is quite possible that a member may not attend the meeting under the impression that no subject in which he is interested is likely to be taken up in that meeting. Therefore, by giving advance information about the subjects to be taken up it is open to the members to decide whether they should attend the meeting or not. In the instant case, had the two members known about the resolution, they would have attended the meeting in time, placed their view points and even influenced the other members to see that the resolution was not passed. In the absence of a notice, they lost the above right and it is open to them to challenge the decisions taken. 6. In the absence of a notice, they lost the above right and it is open to them to challenge the decisions taken. 6. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that if at all anybody has a right to challenge the validity of the resolution passed, it is only the members who were not present at the meeting when the resolution was passed and that the State has no locus standi to set up the contention. Assuming that there is weight in the contention, the powers under Art.226 of the Constitution being discretionary in nature, this court should be satisfied that there are sufficient reasons for invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction and there are no chances of the orders of this Court becoming infructuous. S.49 of the Kerala Panchayats Act empowers the Director of Panchayats to suspend or cancel any resolution passed by the Panchayats if: (a) such resolution has not been legally passed, or (b) such resolution is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or (c) the execution of such resolution is likely to cause danger to human life etc. It is thus open to the Director of Panchayats in the instant case to cancel the resolution invoking his powers under S.49 of the Act. 7. It this Court at the instance of the vice-president, issued a writ and the resolution passed at the meeting without notice to two members is set aside in the appeal taken before the Director of Panchayats, the writ issued by this Court would become useless. This Court will certainly not stultify itself by issuing any such writ. A writ if issued by this Court should effectively run. As long as there is a possibility - as we read S.49, there is not merely a possibility but probability of the resolution being set aside - we do not think our jurisdiction discretionary as it is, should be exercised on the facts and circumstances of this case. In the light of the above, we dismiss this writ appeal. There will be no order as to costs.