( 1 ) IN this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution Sri bharamappa Neelappa Hadimani of Sounshi, who was once the member of the Town Panchayat Committee of Sounsi, has challenged the appellate order made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated 21st July, 1976 in Appeal No. 928 of 1976. The Tribunal has by the said order, set aside the order made by the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum division, Belgaum dt. 28th April, 1976, superseding the Town Panchayat committee of Sounshi under S. 203 (1) (ii) of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE necessary facts to be noticed for the disposal of this case may briefly be stated as follows : ( 3 ) UNDER sub-sec (1) of Sec. 5 of the Act, the Deputy Commr has fixed the total number of members to be elected for the Town Panchayat committee as 17. In the year 1969, general elections were held, at which 17 members were elected for a period of 5 years. General elections to the panchayats were postponed from time to time by appropriate statutory provisions. The last postponement of the elections has been made by karnataka Ordinance 36 of 1976 by which the Karnataka Village Panchayats (Postponement of Elections Act, 1975, has been amended postponing elections till the 31st of December, 1977. ( 4 ) IN Octr, 1973, one member of the panchayat died and in Decr, 1974 the then Vice-Chairman of the panchayat died. On the 25th of march, 1975, elections were held to the offices of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the panchayat, the said offices having become vacant. The members belonging to the party opposed to that of the petitioner having been elected as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively, the petitioner and 6 other members of his party resigned from the membership of the panchayat on the 25,th of March, 1976, immediately after the results of the election to the offices of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman were announced. As a result of the Said resignation and death of two of the members of the panchayat earlier, the strength of the panchayat got reduced to 8 members. The newly elected Chairman appears to have moved the authorities to appoint members in the vacancies so caused under S. 35 of the Act. As a result of the Said resignation and death of two of the members of the panchayat earlier, the strength of the panchayat got reduced to 8 members. The newly elected Chairman appears to have moved the authorities to appoint members in the vacancies so caused under S. 35 of the Act. The said request was not acceded to and rightly so having regard to the decision of this Court in pandurangappa Peethambarappa Hulgar v. Town Panchayat Committee, Shigli. In similar circumstances, this Court has pointed out in the said decision that where the election cannot be held on account of the statutory postponement of the same, the power of filling up the vacancy by appointment under S. 35 (1) of the act canno't be exercised. The Divl Commr, in 'the circumstances, thought that the panchayat of Sounshi has become incompetent to perform its duties under the Act and therefore proposed to supersede the panchayat in exercise of the powers conferred on him by S. 203 (1) (ii) of the Act. After giving an opportunity to the Town Panchayat Committee of showing cause in the matter, the Divl Commr made the order on the 28th of april, 1976, superseding the panchayat. He further directed the Deputy commr to appoint an Administrator to run the affairs of the panchayat during the period of supersession. The order was published in the Gazette of 20th May, 1976, which was placed for my perusal by Shri B. B. Mandapppa, learned High Court Govt Pleader, from which it is clear that the period of supersession has been fixed at 6 months from the date of the order. The Divl Commr has taken the view that the total number of members of the panchayat is 17 and that therefore the minimum number of members required to constitute the quorum under S. 37 (1) of the Act is 9 members. As there are only 8 members of the panchayat and as it is impossible for them to constitute the quorum as required by S. 37 (1) of the Act, he has held that. the panchayat has become incompetent to perform the duties conferred on it by the Act. Several duties have been imposed on the panchayat under Ss. 42, 43 and 45 of the Act. the panchayat has become incompetent to perform the duties conferred on it by the Act. Several duties have been imposed on the panchayat under Ss. 42, 43 and 45 of the Act. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by ,the order of the Divl Commr, the panchayat preferred an appeal under S. 206 (2) of the Act to the Karnataka appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Divl Commr. The Tribunal has taken the view that it cannot be said that the panchayat has become incompetent to perform its duties on the ground that it is not necessary for the panchayats to effectively function to have full sanctioned strength. It is the said order of the Tribunal that is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 1. 1967 (1) Myslj. 106. ( 6 ) SRI R. H. Chandangoudar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the total number of the members of the panchayat haying been reduced by death and resignation to such an extent as to make it impossible to have the quorum prescribed by sub-sec (1) of S. 37 of the Act, it is impossible for the panchayat to function in accordance with law and that therefore it must be regarded as having become incompetent to perform the duties conferred on it by the Act, ( 7 ) SUB-SEC (1) of S. 203 of the Act, which is relevant for the purpose of this case which confers the power of the Divl Commr of dissolving cr superseding a panchayat, is extracted as follows :" 203. Dissolution or supersession of Panchayat or Taluk Board.- (1) If in the opinion of the Commr, a Panchayat exceeds or abuses its powers or is incompetent to perform or makes persistent default in the performance of the duties imposed on it under Sec. 42 or 43 or 45, or any other law for the time being in force, or fails to levy a tax under S. 73 or persistently disobeys any of the orders of the Deputy commr or Commr under this Act, the Commr may by an order published in the Official Gazette- (i) dissolve such Panchayat, or (ii) supersede such Panchayat for the period specified in the order. Such period may be longer than the term for which the members of the Panchayat would have held office under S. 24, if the Panchayat had not been superseded under this section: provided that the Commr may from time to time extend or curtail the period of supersession by an order published in the Official gazette: provided further that no such period shall extend beyond one year, unless the previous sanction of the Govt has been obtained. " it is clear from this provision that the Commr can supersede a panchayat if he forms an opinion that it is incompetent to perform the duties imposed on it under S. 42, 43 or 45 or any other law for the time being in force or fails to levy a tax under S. 73 or persistently disobeys any of the orders of the Deputy Commr or Commr under the Act. As already stated, the divl Commr has made the order, holding that the panchayat has become incompetent to perform the duties imposed on it by the Act, the total number of members of the panchayat having been reduced to a number lower than the quorum prescribed by sub-sec (1) of S. 37 of the Act. ( 8 ) THE panchayat can transact business at meetings held for that purpose periodically as provided in S. 36 of the Act. Sub-sec (1) of S. 37 of the Act, which prescribes the quorum and procedure, may be extracted as follows : 37. Quorum and Procedure.- (1) The quorum for a meeting of the Panchayat shall be one-half of the total number of members. If the quorum is not complete at a meeting, the presiding authority shall adjourn the meeting to such time on the following day or some future day as he may fix. A notice of the meeting so fixed shall be posted in the office of the Panchayat. The business, which could not be considered at the meeting so postponed for want of quorum, shall be brought before and disposed of, at the meeting so fixed or at any subsequent adjourned meeting at which there is a quorum. " it is clear from sub-sec (1) of S. 37 of the Act that for transacting any business, (there has to be the necessary quorum. The prescribed quorum is necessary not only for the first meeting fixed but also for the adjourned meeting. " it is clear from sub-sec (1) of S. 37 of the Act that for transacting any business, (there has to be the necessary quorum. The prescribed quorum is necessary not only for the first meeting fixed but also for the adjourned meeting. In other words, without the quorum prescribed by S. 37 (l), no business can be transacted by the panchayat. If without the prescribed quorum no business of the panchayat can be transacted, it follows. that it will not be in a position to perform any of the duties conferred on it by Ss. 42, 43 or 45 or any other provision of the Act. It is nobody's case that without the prescribed quorum the business of the panchayat can be transacted. Parties have, however, joined issue on the question as to what constitutes the quorum of the panchayat. Whereas Shri Chandangoudar maintains that the quorum prescribed by sub-sec (1) of S. 37 must be determined with reference to the total strength of the panchayat sanctioned under Sec. 5 (1) of the Act, Shri V. H. Ron, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent-panchayat, maintains 'that the quorum has to be determined with reference to the existing number of members of the panchayat. The contention of Shri Ron is that the existing number of members of the panchayat being 3, the panchayat can transact business at meetings held at which at least 5 members are present. The question for consideration is, as to which of the rival contentions is right. ( 9 ) THE first sentence in sub-section (1) of Sec. 37 reads thus: the quorum for a meeting of the Panchayat shall be one-half of the total number of members'" the expression "one-half of the total number of members" has obviously reference to the strength of the panchayat sanctioned by the Deputy commr under S. 5 (l) of the Act. Sub-sec (1) of S. 5 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of the Act, a panchayat shall consist of such number of members, not being less than eleven nor more than nineteen in numbers, as the Deputy Commr may determine, all of whom shall be elected. It is not disputed -that the strength of the panchayat has been fixed by the Deputy Commr at 17. It is not disputed -that the strength of the panchayat has been fixed by the Deputy Commr at 17. The word 'total' has been used in the first sentence of sub-sec (1) of S. 37 to emphasise that the number of members referred to in the said provision is not the existing number of members. The expression "total number of members" in the context can only have reference to the sanctioned strength of the panchayat. If the legislature intended that the quorum of one-half of the members has to be determined with reference to the existing number of members and not total sanctioned strength of the members, instead of the word 'total' the word 'existing' would have been used. The view I have taken on the construction of sub-sec (1) of S. 37 receives considerable support from the decision of the Assam High Court in Samiruddin Ahmed v. SDO, Man- galdoi, AIR. 1971 Assam 163. . The provision that came for construction before the said Court was S. 27 (l) (b) of the Assam Gram Panchayat Act 1959, which reads as follows :" 27 (l) (b ). A President of a Gaon Panchayat shall immediately cease to hold office, if by three-fifth majority of votes of members present a motion of no confidence is passed by them in a meeting of the Gaon Panchayat where at least a minimum of two-thirds of total number of members is present. "their Lordships of the Assam Hih Court have held that the expression "total number of members" used in S. 27 (l) (b) of the Assam Gram Pan- chayat Act has reference to the total sanctioned strength of the panchayat and not the existing number of members of the panchayat. For the reasons already stated, I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by their Lordships of the Assam High Court. ( 10 ) RELYING on the decision of this Court in Siddalingappa Hanumappa marambid v. Election Officer, Ganjigatti Group Gram Panchayat , 1970 (1) Myslj. 397 . the Tribunal has held that the panchayat can function with 8 members even though the sanctioned strength is 17. ( 10 ) RELYING on the decision of this Court in Siddalingappa Hanumappa marambid v. Election Officer, Ganjigatti Group Gram Panchayat , 1970 (1) Myslj. 397 . the Tribunal has held that the panchayat can function with 8 members even though the sanctioned strength is 17. In the said decision, this Court has held that there is nothing in any of the provisions of the act to require the full sanctioned strength of the members to be present at all times in order that a validly constituted panchayat should be in existence. That for the continuance of a validly constituted panchayat it is not necessary to have the full sanctioned strength of the panchayat does not mean that the panchayat can function without the quorum pre- cribed by S. 37 (l) of the Act. Though it is not necessary that there should be the full sanctioned strength of the members of the panchayat to be present at all times in order that a validly constituted panchayat should be in existence, if by death, resignation or for any other reason the strength of the members of the panchayat gets reduced to such an extent as to make it impossible to have the quorum prescribed by sub-sec (1) of s. 37 of the Act, the inference that; the panchayat has become incompetent to perform its duties under the Act becomes irresistible. ( 11 ) THOUGH S. 41 of the Act provides for validating action taken by the panchayat during the vacancy of a member or members, the said provision cannot be relied upon as an argument against action being taken under Sec. 203 of the Act, on the ground that the panchayat has become incompetent to perform its duties, the total number of members of the panchayat having been reduced to a number lower than the quorum prescribed by sub-sec (l) of S. 37 of the Act. ( 12 ) IT is not possible to accede to the contention of Shri Ron that i should decline to interfere in this case on the ground that the petitioner has become disentitled to any relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It was contended that the petitioner being one of the 7 members who resigned on the 25th of March, 1975. must be regarded as a person who has launched the panchayat into this difficulty. It was contended that the petitioner being one of the 7 members who resigned on the 25th of March, 1975. must be regarded as a person who has launched the panchayat into this difficulty. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner has every right to resign from the membership of the panchayat. If he can exercise his right and tendered his resignation, it cannot be said that the said conduct disentitles him from taking a stand that the panchayat cannot, in law, legally function. It is also not possible to accede to the contention that the petitioner cannot be regarded as a person aggrieved, as he was not a party to the proceedings before the divl Commr and the Tribunal. It is necessary to point out that the petitioner was the elected member of the panchayat before his resignation. The petitioner, as a vo'ter, is undoubtedly entitled to ensure that the panchayat functions in accordance with law. As a voter, he must be regarded as a person having sufficient interest to challenge the impugned order of the Tribunal. As the panchayat has become incompetent to perform its functions, it is obvious that the entire electorate including the petitioner for whose benefit the panchayat is constituted, will suffer substantial injury if the impugned order of the Tribunal is not quashed. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is hereby quashed. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .