( 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 :" P. 447, Bangalore-2.-Meeting of the village panchayat Hagalahalli to move no-confidence motion against the Chairman scheduled to be held on 3rd/3 is hereby stayed. Wire compliance. Vikas. "indisputably the telegram issued from the Govt Secretariat had been received by the Chief Executive Officer well before the meeting of the panchayat was scheduled to be held on 3-3-75 to consider the no-confidence motion against the Chairman and Vice Chairman. Wire compliance. Vikas. "indisputably the telegram issued from the Govt Secretariat had been received by the Chief Executive Officer well before the meeting of the panchayat was scheduled to be held on 3-3-75 to consider the no-confidence motion against the Chairman and Vice Chairman. Notwithstanding the same, the meeting of the Panchayat was held on 3-3-75 and a no confidence resolution was passed against petitioners. Under sub-sec (2) of Sec. 32 of the Act, the resolution passed by the Panchayat on 3-3-75 has been approved by the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagaram, on 3-5-75 (Ext. A) and the same has been affirmed in the appeals filed by the petitioners before the Divisional Commissioner and Karnataka Appellate tribunal. In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order dt. 3-5-75 of the Asst Commr, Ramanagaram, affirmed in appeals by the Divl Commr and the Karnataka appellate Tribunal. ( 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 ( 4 ) SHRI V. C. Brahmarayappa, learned High Court Govt Pleader appearing for respondents-2 and 3, did not dispute the stay order issued by the Govt or its legal effect before me. Shri V. C. Brahmarayappa fairly stated that Govt had issued an order of stay as averred by the petitioners, in the first instance communicated the same by telegram on 2-3-75 and sent a confirmation also on 29-5-75 which reads thus :'state Telegram-Chief Executive Officer Taluk Development board, Ramanagaram meeting of Hagalahalli Panchayat to elect Chairman and Vice chairman scheduled to be held on Thirtyeth May is hereby stayed (*) letter follows-Vikas not to be telegraphed: sd|- N. Muddaraja Urs, under Secty to Govt, Rural Development and Co-op Dept. " no. RDC. 115 VAD 75 Karnataka Govt Secretariat, vidhana Soudha, bangalore, dt. 29th May 1975 copy in confirmation of the above said telegram is forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Development Board, Ramanagaram, for immediate necessary action. Copy to the Asst Commr, Ramanagaram, for information and necessary action. Sd/- N. Muddaraja Urs, 29|5 under Secretary to Govt. " ( 5 ) IN the records of the office of the Asst Commr Ramanagaram, produced before me for my perusual. 1 find the original telegram and the original confirmation letter sent by the Govt. I have no reason to disbslieve the telegram issued by the Govt on 2-3-75 and its receipt by the chief Executive Officer. ( 6 ) SHRI K. N. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for respondents-5 and 6 strenuously contended before me that the order of stay issued by the govt was without jurisdiction and therefore the action taken by the chief Executive Officer who held the meeting on 3-3-75 and the proceedings thereto on that day were valid. In my view, there is no force in the contention of Shri K. N. Subba Reddy. Sec. 207 of the 1959 Act expressly confers the power of revision on the Govt against any order of a subordinatre officer at any stage of the proceedings. In my view, the revision petition filed by the petitioners before Govt was competent and Govt had the jurisdiction and power to issue an order of stay. ( 7 ) SHRI K. N. Subba Reddy next contended that there was no order passed by any subordinate officer and therefore the revision petition filed before Govt under Sec. 207 of the 1959 Act was itself not maintainable. ( 7 ) SHRI K. N. Subba Reddy next contended that there was no order passed by any subordinate officer and therefore the revision petition filed before Govt under Sec. 207 of the 1959 Act was itself not maintainable. In order to examine this contention , it is necessary to notice that on the failure of the Chairman to convene a meeting, the Chief Executive Officer had convened the meeting by issuing notices to the members of the panchayat in that behalf. In Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, II Edn, the word 'order' among various other meanings has been defined as under :" Order:-Mandate, precept, command, also a class or rank. In its simplest sense, an order is a mandate or direction. "in my view, the notice issued to the members of the Panchayat by the chief Executive Officer was in the nature of a direction and therefore the same falls within the meaning of the word 'order' which has not been defined in the 1959 Act. In my view, there is no merit in the contention of Sri k. N. Subba Reddy that there was no order and therefore Govt had no power to entertain the revision petition under Sec. 207 of the 1959 Act. ( 8 ) LASTLY, Shri K. N. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 vehemently contended before mo that the telegram addressed to the Block Development Officer and found in the records produced before me, was itself a 'bogus' document and therefore the Chief Executive officer was well within his right in holding the meeting of the Panchayat on 3-3-75. Shri K. N. Subba Reddy maintained that in the telegram the name of the authortiy that had issued the same has not been indicated and therefore the same has to be held as 'bogus' and that no value should be attached. It is common knowledge that telegrams from Govt Offices are issued in telegraphic codes/ addresses and 'vikas' stands for the Karnataka, govt Secretariat. Normally in telegrams the name and designation of the officer and various other details that are generally written in letters are not mentioned and only the gist of the matter is communicated to the concerned officer. It is common knowledge that telegrams from Govt Offices are issued in telegraphic codes/ addresses and 'vikas' stands for the Karnataka, govt Secretariat. Normally in telegrams the name and designation of the officer and various other details that are generally written in letters are not mentioned and only the gist of the matter is communicated to the concerned officer. The Block Development Officer, Ramanagaram, who is also the Chief Executive Officer of Ramanagaram Taluk Board, arrayed as a respondent in this writ petition has not taken the stand that the telegram is a 'bogus' one. On the other hand from the papers produced before me I find that the Chief Executive Officer had all along taken the stand that the telegram had been received by him on 2-3-75. I therefore hold that there is no merit in the contention of Shri K. N. Subba Reddy that the telegram received by the Block Development officer on 2-3-75 was a 'bogus' one. ( 9 ) LET me now consider the validity of the contention urged by shri S. Shivaswamy. ( 10 ) ONCE it is held that Govt had issued an order of stay on 2-3-75, it follows that the Chief Executive Officer was not competent to hold the meeting of the Panchayat on 3-3-75 and the Panchayat was not competent to consider and pass the 'no-confidence' resolution against the petitioners. What then is the legal effect of the stay order issued by the government on 2-3-75 on the proceedings of the Panchayat cannot be better expressed than by reproducing the dictum of the Supreme Court in mulraj's case (1 ). In that case, it is held :" In the case of a stay order, aa it is addressed to the Court and prohibits it from proceeding further, as soon as the Court has knowledge of the order it is bound to obey it and if does'not, it acts illegally and all proceedings taken after the knowledge of the order would be a nullity. "in my view, the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mulraj'a case while examining the effect of an order of stay in execution proceedings is a general principle applicable to all orders of stay issued by courts and authorities in any proceeding and therefore the principle in that case is equally applicable to a proceeding arising under the 1959 Act. In my view, the Asst Commr, Divl Commr and the Appellate Tribunal, have unfortunately glossed over the effect of the stay order issued by govt and its legal effect and have committed a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record resulting in failure of justice to the petitioners. As I have reached the conclusion that the action of the Chief executive Officer in holding the meeting on 3-3-75 and the passing of the no-confidence motion by the Panchayat were illegal, it is unnecessary for me to consider the nature of the orders passed by the Asst Commr, divl Commr and the Appellate Tribunal and the correctness of the reasons given by those authorities to sustain the no-confidence motion resolution passed by the Panchayat. I, therefore, hold that the impugned orders which are manifestly illegal are liable to be quashed. Order accordingly. ( 11 ) IN May, 1975 Govt has vacated the exparte interim order of stay issued in the revision petition of the petitioners. Shri S. Shivaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the revision petition filed by the petitioners was not pressed and it is no longer pending. In those circumstances, there is no impediment for the Chief Executive Officer to convene a fresh meeting of the members of the Panchayat, consider and pass a fresh no confidence resolution against the petitioners in accordance with law. ( 12 ) RULE made absolute. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .