N. R. KUDOOR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Shivalingaswamy has challenged the validity of a notice Annexure-G dt. 19-9-1980 issued by the respondent Chief Executive Officer, Taluk development Board, Chamarajanagar calling for a special meeting of the Harave village Panchayat on 23-9-1980 for consideration of a notice of no confidence motion given by the required number of members against the petitioner who is the chairman of the said Panchayat. ( 2 ) A few facts relevant for the consideration of the points raised in this petition may be stated as under : eleven members of the Panchayat gave a notice of no confidence motion against the petitioner as per Annexure-A and requested to call for a meeting of the panchayat in that connection. The Secretary of the Panchayat issued a notice dt. 21-7-1980 as per Annexure-D calling for a meeting of the panchayat on 28-7-1980 for the consideration of the motion of no confidence. The petitioner challenged the validity of the said notice in W. P. No. 10744/80. This court, as per its order dt. 22-8-1980 Annexure-E, quashed the notice Annexure-D and directed the parties to take recourse in accordance with law in respect of the no confidence motion tabled against the petitioner. Even after the disposal of the above writ petition with a direction to the parties to take recourse in accordance with law in respect of the no confidence motion tabled against the petitioner, the petitioner did not call for the meeting of the panchayat as required under sub-sec. (1) of S. 32 of the Act. Thereupon, the respondent herein called for a meeting of the Panchayat on 23-9-1980 as per Annexure-G dt. 19-9-1980 for the consideration of the no confidence motion tabled by the members against the petitioner. The petitioner in this petition questions the validity of the said notice. (1) of S. 32 of the Act. Thereupon, the respondent herein called for a meeting of the Panchayat on 23-9-1980 as per Annexure-G dt. 19-9-1980 for the consideration of the no confidence motion tabled by the members against the petitioner. The petitioner in this petition questions the validity of the said notice. ( 3 ) IT is contended by Shri B. M. Chandrashekaraiah, the learned advocate for the petitioner, that all the signatories to the notice of the no confidence motion were disqualified for being members of the Panchayat as they failed to pay the tax due from them to the panchayat and as such there was no obligation on the part of the petitioner to call for a meeting on the basis of their requisition as per annexure-A and in that view his further submission is that the notice issued by the respondent for calling the meeting of the panchayat is not in accordance with law. ( 4 ) IN support of this contention, sri B. M. Chandrasekharaiah, placed reliance on three documents Annexures-B, C and F produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition. Annexure-B is a letter dt. 11-7-1980 written by the petitioner under his signature to the 9 members of the Panchayat named therein informing them that proper action would be taken to remove them from the membership of the Panchayat for their failure to pay the tax in spite of the notices issued to them. Annexure-C is the copy of a statement prepared by the secretary showing the arrears of tax and also the date of the issue of the notices claiming the arrears from 11 members of the Panchayat. Annexure-F is a copy of the letter dt. 3-9-1980 signed by the petitioner and addressed to the members of the panchayat informing them that he (petitioner) could not call for a meeting in accordance with law to consider the notice of the 'no confidence' motion tabled against him by some of the members of the Panchayat since the requisition was signed by the members who were in arrears of tax to the Panchayat and also informing those members that they had been removed from the membership of the Panchayat. ( 5 ) S. 11 of the Karnataka Village panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') provides for the disqualification of the membership. Cl. (ii) of sub-sec. ( 5 ) S. 11 of the Karnataka Village panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') provides for the disqualification of the membership. Cl. (ii) of sub-sec. (2) provides that if a member of a Panchayat fails to pay any tax or fee due to the Panchayat within three months from the date on or before which the amount of such tax or fee is required to be paid in the bill presented to the person under sub-sec. (1) of S. 77, his seat shall thereupon become vacant Cl. (m)of sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 of the Act provides that if a person has ceased to be a member by his seat becoming vacant under Cl. (ii) of sub-sec (2), he shall be disqualified for being a member of the Panchayat as long as the amount of tax or fee due to the panchayat was not paid. Sub-sec. (3) which is material for our purpose reads thus :" If any question arises whether a vacancy has occurred under sub-sec. (2), the question shall be referred to the Deputy Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner shall, after giving an opportunity to the member concerned to be heard, decide the question". ( 6 ) IN this case, it is the case of the petitioner that the signatories to the notice of no confidence motion tabled against him ceased to be the memers of the Panchayat as they failed to pay the tax due from them to the Panchayat in spite of the notice issued to them. Admittedly no order was obtained from the Deputy Commissioner as required under sub-section (3) of S. 11 of the Act regarding the seats of the signatories to the notice of no confidence motion having become vacant under sub-sec. (2 ). It is only the allegation of the petitioner that the signatories to the notice of no confidence motion have ceased to be the members of the panchayat as they failed to pay the tax due to the panchayat. In addition to the allegations made by the petitioner, the petitioner himself seems to have taken action against the members who were signatories to the notice of no confidence motion tabled against him by removing them from the membership of the Panchayat (Annexure-F), a power not given to the chairman of the panchayat under any of the provisions of the Act. There is no dispute that all the signatories to the notice of-no confidence motion were the duly elected members of the panchayat. Once a person is elected as a member of the panchayat, he would continue to be the member during the term of his office unless there is a declaration by the competent authority in accordance with law that his seat has become vacant. Admittedly the membership of the signatories to the notice of no confidence motion have not been declared vacant by the competent authority. Such being the position, I do not think that the petitioner was right in refusing to call for a meeting as required under law, under the excuse that the signatories to the notice of no confidence motion were defaulters in payment of the tax. That may be the allegation made by the petitioner against them, but their seats have not been declared vacant on that count or on any other count by the competent authority. Since the petitioner failed to call for a meeting as required under sub-sec. (1) of S. 32 of the Act, the respondent was within his competence to call for the meeting of the panchayat as notified by him in his notice Annexure-G. I see no illegality committed by the respondent in doing so. In that view of the matter, i see no useful purpose will be served by issuing a rule nisi. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .