K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) AT Siruguppa town of Bellary Dist. , that being the Taluk head quarters of the same taluk, there is a Taluk Development board (hereinafter referred to as 'the tdb') for that taluk constituted and functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards act, 1959, (Kar. Act No. 10 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The strength of the TDB is 15 and respondents 3 and 4 were its elected President and vice-President respectively. ( 2 ) ON 5 6 1982 ten members of the tdb served a notice of no confidence motion against respondents 3 and 4 on the chief Executive Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the CEO') of the TDB. On that notice, the CEO convened a special meeting of the TDB on 18-6-1982 and issued notice No. TDB/519/82-83 NO. dated 8 -6-82 (Annexure-A) to all the members, which reads thuis :"special Meeting Notice sub : TDB-Siruguppa-Convening of Spl. Meeting to move No Confidence motion against President and Vice-President. Ref. Letter dt. 5-6-1982 signed by ten members of TDB calling for Spl. Meeting and requiring the CEO, TDB to issue notices for a Spl. of TDB on 18-6 1982 at 1 p. m. under the provisions of sub rule (2) of Kar. Taluk Board (Convening of Spl. Meetings) Rules, 1969 for consideration of the motion of no confidence against the President and vice President of Taluk Development board. Under the reference cited, (10) ten Taluk development Board members have informed that they had requisitioned the president TDB, Siruguppa to call a Spl. meeting for deciding motion of No-Confldcnce against the President and vice-President of the Board on 6-5-1982 and that the President having failed to call the said Spl. meeting under cl. (a) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 117 of the KVP and LB Act, 1959 as per sub -rule (2) of the KTB (Convening of Spl. Meetings) Rules, 1969 the members who have made a written request have called for Spl. meeting on 18-6-1982 at 1 p. m. at the premises of Taluk Development Board, Siruguppa to decide the said motion of No-Confidence against the President and Vice President are requiring the Chief Executive Officer of the board to issue notices to all the members. Meetings) Rules, 1969 the members who have made a written request have called for Spl. meeting on 18-6-1982 at 1 p. m. at the premises of Taluk Development Board, Siruguppa to decide the said motion of No-Confidence against the President and Vice President are requiring the Chief Executive Officer of the board to issue notices to all the members. Hence, under the said provisions of sub-rule (2) cited above, I herewith issue aotice to all the members of the TDB, siruguppa to attend the Spl. meeting on 18-6 1962 at 1 p. m. at TDB, Siruguppa meeting hall for consideration of No- confidence motion against the President and Vice President. All the members are requested to attend the meeting. Sd/ CEO, TDB, Siruguppa". Respondents 3 and 4 challenged the said notice before this Court in WPs Nos. 20506 and 20902 of 1982 and sought for stay of the meeting scheduled to be held on 18-6-1982. But, on 16 6-1982 I rejected them at the preliminary hearing stage without notice to the respondents. ( 3 ) AGAINST my order, respondents 3 and 4 filed W As Nos. 1217 and 1218 of 1982 before this Court but did not get an order of stay on or before 18-6-1982 or thereafter also. ( 4 ) WITH no other impediment, the members of the TDB met at the appointed time and hour viz. , 18 6-1982 at 1 p. m. , at which respondents 3 and 4 -were absent. But, despite the same, the no confidence motion was considered and passed by eleven members that attended the said meeting. On 30-6-1982 the Dy. Commissioner, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as 'the DC") forwarded the papers to Government to pass orders under S. 114 (3) of the act. But, the State Government without passing a final order within the time stipulated by sub 8ec. (3) of S. 114 of the Act, passsd an order on 16-8-1982 directing Its subordinates to maintain 'status quo' till it examines the entire question and that order communicated to the Asst. But, the State Government without passing a final order within the time stipulated by sub 8ec. (3) of S. 114 of the Act, passsd an order on 16-8-1982 directing Its subordinates to maintain 'status quo' till it examines the entire question and that order communicated to the Asst. Commissioner, Bellary Sub- Division, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as 'the AC') by telex message reads thus :"government is examining the entire question of the removal of President and vice-President, Taluk Development Board siruguppa (.) Pending further orders status quo should maintained (.)"aggrieved by the said order, which permits respondents 3 and 4 to continue as president and Vice President of the TDB till the matters are decided, the petitioners who are the members of the TDB and participated in passing the no confidence resolution, have challenged the same in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 5 ) BUT, before that a few other interesting developments bad occurred which are also worth noticing at this stage itself, ( 6 ) ON 30-6-19-82 respondents NOs. 3 and 4 filed a memo In their W As Nos, 1217 and 1218 of 1982 seeking permission to withdraw their writ petitions and the same was allowed by this Court on the same day also and the order made in the said writ petitions was set aside, without expressing any opinion on that order. ( 7 ) ON 5-7-1982 respondent No. 3 presented a petition addressed to the Minister for Rural Development and Panchayat raj without invoking any provision of law seeking for the following main and interim reliefs :"wherefore, I pray that your hon'ble authority may be pleased to set aside the vote of no confidence that was moved by some of the members of the taluk Development Board, Siruguppa on 18-6-1982 expressing their no confidence against me (as President) and mr. Pampapathy, as Vice President in the interests of justice. Interim prayer i further pray that pending disposal of the above petition that your Hon'ble authority may be pleased to stay the resolution that was passed by some of the members of the Taluk Development board, Siruguppa on 18-6-1982 expressing their vote of no confidence against me (as President) and against Mr. Pampapathy as Vice President of the said board, in the interest of justice and equity". Pampapathy as Vice President of the said board, in the interest of justice and equity". Again on 3-8 1982 respondent No. 3 presented another petition addressed to the Secretary to Government, Rural development and Panchayat Raj, virtuaally seeking for the very relief sought in his earlier petition presented before the minister. ( 8 ) IN his petitions presented before the minister and the Secretary, respondent no, 3 inter alia urged that the very Spl. meeting notice Issued by the CEO was illegal and all stops taken thereto culminating in the no confidence resolution were illegal. But, on the proposal submitted by the DC or the controversy raised by respondent No, 3 that are simple, no final decision was taken by government, except making the impugned interlocutory order, that is capable of more than one construction, though the matter was examined at great length at more than one level. ( 9 ) THE petitioners have urged that the one and the only question that called for examination and decision by the State government under S. 114 (3) of the Act, was whether a resolution expressing no confidence had been passed by not less two thirds of the total number of members of the TDB and that it was not open to government to examine any other question much less the legality of the notice issued by the CEO. Secondly, they have urged that on the expiry of 60 days, the state Government has no power to make any order under S. 114 (3) of the Act and that by operation of law, respondents 3 and 4 had vacated their offices on 17-8-1982 and they cannot function as president and Vice-president of the TDB from that date. ( 10 ) RESPONDENTS have not filed their return. But, at the hearing, they sought to support the impugned order on more than one ground that will be noticed and dealt in due course. ( 11 ) SRI B. G. Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on the proposals made by the DC, the one and the only question that was open to government to examine and decide, was whether the no confidence resolution had been passed by not less than two thirds of the members of the TDB and no other question. ( 12 ) SRI M. R. Achar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri N. Y. Hanumanthappa, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4, urged that it was open to Government to examine the validity of the meeting notice, the validity of the meeting held and the validity of the resolution passed by the members. Elaborating their contention, learned counsel for the respondents maintained that a proper meeting notice was the very foundation for holding a meeting. In support of their contention, counsel strongly rely on the rulings of this Court in B. R. Ramdlingappa v. Chief Executive Officer, Hosdurga (1) and gangappa, H. K. v. K. A. T. (2 ). ( 13 ) S. 114 of the Act deals with the resignation or removal of President and vice President and grant of leave to president and Vice-President of a TDB. We are here concerned only with the removal of the President and Vice-President of the TDB. ( 14 ) SUB sec. (3) of S. 114 dealing with the removal of President and Vice-President that is material reads thus :"every President and Vice-President shall be removed from office by the government if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the taluk Board at a meeting specially convened for the purpose: provided that the President or Vice-President shall vacate office on the expiry of 60 days from the date of passing of the resolution, if no order of such removal is made by Government within that period". Under this provision, a resolution passed by a Taluk Board expressing no confiderce against a President, Vice -President or both, as in the present case, is required to be submitted to State Government to make an order for his or their removal as the case may be. S. 114 (3) of the Act directs Government to pass an order for removal, if the resolution is passed by not less than two thirds of the members of the TDB at a meeting specially convened for that purpose. All that or the one and the only question that Government can examine and decide is whether a resolution has been passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the members of the tdb and no other. All that or the one and the only question that Government can examine and decide is whether a resolution has been passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the members of the tdb and no other. The section does not confer an unlimited and uncontrolled supervisory, much less an appellate or revisional power on Government. The reason for conferment of a very limited power on Government is not far to seek. S. 114 (3) requires not to undo what has been done by a TDB which is a democratic institution. Even otherwise, the section does not empower Government to pass an interlocutory order and thus paralyse the working of the Taluk Board. ( 15 ) THE total number of members of the TDB is 15 and the no confidence motion had been passed be eleven members of the TDB or by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the TDB. In his report dt. 30 6 1982, the DC had stated that no confidence motion had been passed against respondents 3 and 4 by not less than two thirds of the members of the tdb and, therefore, he requested Government to make a consequential order for the removal of respondents 3 and 4. Before me also, the respondents have not urged that the no confidence motion has not been passed by eleven members on 18-6-1982. On these facts, which were telling and not in dispute, the one and the only order that the State Government should have passed within 60 days from the date of the resolution was to order the removal of respondents 3 and 4. But, unfortunately, the State Government has allowed a simple matter to drift and has not passed a final order within the stipulated time. In my view, the order made by Government is plainly contrary to s. 114 (3) of the Act and is manifestly illegal. ( 16 ) SRI Hanumanthappa, however, urged that the petitions filed by respondent No. 2 were revision petitions before government under S. 207 of the Act and the interlocutory order made by the State government should be treated as made in those revision petitions which are still pending disposal before Government. ( 17 ) IN his petitions, respondent No. 3 has not invoked S. 207 of the Act. ( 17 ) IN his petitions, respondent No. 3 has not invoked S. 207 of the Act. In this view itself, it is difficult to hold that they are revision petitions filed before government under the said provision. ( 18 ) BUT, still I will assume that respondent No. 3 had filed petitions under S. 207 of the Act and examine whether they are maintainable and it was open to Government to make a final order or an interlocutory order. ( 19 ) S. 207 of the Act confers power of revision on Government and the commissioner on orders made by their subordinate officers. A TDB constituted and functioning under the Act is not a subordinate officer to Government and, therefore, a resolution passed by that Board, by any stretch of imagination cannot be construed as an order made by a subordinate officer. In this view also the petitions filed by respondent No. 3, even if they are treated as revision petitions, were not maintainable and, therefore, it was not open to make any final or interlocutory orders, except to reject them as not maintainable. ( 20 ) EVEN otherwise, Government cannot exercise the power of revision conferred by S, 207 of the Act as it has been conferred with exclusive power under S. 114 ( ) of the Act, Any power, conferred on one and the same authority by more than one provision, should be exercised so as not to defeat either of the provisions. The construction suggested by Sri Hanumanthappa will render S. 114 (3) otiose and will confer unbridled power on government. Such a construction cannot be accepted on any principle. ( 21 ) ON any principle of law, it is not possible to hold that the petitions filed by respondent No. 3 were revision petitions and, therefore, it was open to Government to make the interlocutory order on 16 8-1982. For all these reasons, I see no merit in this contention of Sri Hanumanthappa and I reject the same. ( 22 ) ON the above views expressed by me, the question of Government or this court examining the validity of the Spl. meeting notice issued by the CEO or the applicability of the rulings relied on by sri Hanumanthappa does not arise. I, therefore, refrain to examine the same. ( 22 ) ON the above views expressed by me, the question of Government or this court examining the validity of the Spl. meeting notice issued by the CEO or the applicability of the rulings relied on by sri Hanumanthappa does not arise. I, therefore, refrain to examine the same. ( 23 ) SRI Sridharan, next contends that on the expiry of 60 days from the date of passing the resolution, it is not open to government to exercise any power and this Court should declare that respondents 3 and 4 have vacated their respective offices to enable respondent No. 2 to take necessary steps for filling up the vacant offices. ( 24 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents urged that it it open to the petitioners to appear before Government and seek for the vacation of the Impugned inter locatory order on the very grounds urged here and such other grounds that are available to them. ( 25 ) EARLIER, I have found that the impugned interlocutory order is manifestly illegal and is liable to be quashed. In this view, to compel the petitioners to move for vacating the same before Government would be a sheer exercise in futility. Hence, I see no merit in this contention of the respondents and I reject the same. ( 26 ) PROVISO to 8. 114 (3) of the Act declares that if the State Government does not make an order within 60 days from the date of the passing of the resolution by the requisite majority, the President or the vice President against whom a resolution had been passed by the TDB shall vacate his office on the expiry of 60 days Whatever be the difficulty or reason for the state Government not to act within the stipulated time, the proviso to S. 114 (3) of the Act springs into action immediately on the expiry of the time stipulated by S. 114 (3) of the Act. ( 27 ) AFTER all the period of 60 days provided to decide a simple issue cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to be an unreasonable time. Unfortunately in this case, the State Government has created a phantom out of nothing and has allowed the matters to drift for more than 60 days. ( 27 ) AFTER all the period of 60 days provided to decide a simple issue cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to be an unreasonable time. Unfortunately in this case, the State Government has created a phantom out of nothing and has allowed the matters to drift for more than 60 days. The law in its wisdom provides an absolute upper limit for a decision to be taken by Government and the same cannot be circumvented or defeated by making an interesting interlocutory order. ( 28 ) ADMITTEDLY, the period of 60 days has expired on 17 8 1912. When that is so, the State Government exercising its power under S. 114 does not arise. In this view, it would be and sheer waste of public time to direct the Government to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders as suggested by Sri Hanmnanthappa. In any view, acceptance of the suggestion made by sri Hanumanthappa would only paralyse the working of the TDB, which to some extent has already been paralysed by the interlocutory order made by Government, the operation of which was not stayed by this Court. Any further delay to make a declaration is not in the interests of tht smooth functioning of the TDB. In this view, it is necessary to make an appropriate declaration and issue appropriate directions for filling up the vacant offices. ( 29 ) IN the light of my above discussion, i make the following orders and directions : (A) I quash the order No. RDC 71 bdb 82 dt. 16-8 1982 issued by the secretary to Government, Rural Deve lopment and Co operation Department, vidhana Soudha, Bangalore to the Asst. Commissioner, Bellary Sub Division, bellary (Annexure C); (B) I declare that respondents 3 and 4 have been validity removed from their respective offices and the State Government is not competent to make any order under S. 114 (3) of the Act ; and (C) I direct respondent No. 2 to take all immediate necessary steps to fill up the vacant offices of the President and the Vice President of the TDB, Siruguppa in accordance with law. ( 30 ) RULE issued is made absolute with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250. ( 31 ) LET a copy of this order be communicated to respondents 1 and 2 within five days from this day. ( 30 ) RULE issued is made absolute with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250. ( 31 ) LET a copy of this order be communicated to respondents 1 and 2 within five days from this day. ( 32 ) SRI M. R. Achar, learned Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance for respondents 1 and 2 within 15 days from this day. --- *** --- .