Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1982 DIGILAW 221 (KAR)

S. R. RAMAIAH v. TLK DEV BD,HOSAKOTE

1982-10-01

K.S.PUTTASWAMY

body1982
K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) ON a Special order made by the hon'ble the Chief Justice this case was posted before me to-day for preliminary hearing (Group-A) with the interim prayer made by the petitioner. Sri V. Gopala Gowda, has suo motu entred appearance for respondents 1 and 2. At my direction Sri Venkatachalaiah, learned High Court Government pleader, takes notice for respondent no. 3. He is permitted to file his memo of appearance for that respondent within 15 days from this day. As agreed to by all the parties, this case is treated as listed for final hearing to-day and is accordingly heard. ( 2 ) ISSUE rule nisi. ( 3 ) AT Hosakote Town, that being the Taluk Head Quarters of the same taluk, there is a Taluk Development board (hereinafter referred to as the tdb) constituted and functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka village Panchayats and Local Boards act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The strength ' of the TDB is 22 and the petitioner is its elected president. ( 4 ) ON 27. 9. 1982 (Ar^nepcure-B) 13 elected members of the TDB addressed the Chief Executive Officer, Taluk development Board, Hoskote (hereinafter referred to as the, CEO) requesting him to convene a special meeting of the TDB to consider their no confidence motion against the petitioner. On that requisition, the CEO. by his notice datedl 29. 9. 1982, has called for a special meeting of. the TDB to be held on 8-10-1982 at 12-30 p. m. to consider the no-confidence motion addressed to him by the said 13 members of the TDB. In this petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the special meeting notice issued by the ceo. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has asserted that the required! number of members did not serve a written request of no confidence motion on him and the requisition addressed by the 13 members to the CEO and the action taken thereon by the CEO to convene a special meeting are in contravention of S. 117 (2) (a) of the Act and Rule 2 of the Karntaka Local Boards (Convening of Meetings) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) made under the Act. ( 6 ) IN their return, respondents 1 and 2 while justifying the impugned special meeting notice, have asserted that the requisite number of members have served a written request on the petitioner in conformity with the Act. ( 7 ) SRI K. Subbarao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that in the absence of a written request by not less than 1/2 th of the total number of members served on his client, it was not open to the CEO to take cognisance of the requisition addressed to him and call for a special meeting on 8. 10. 1982. In support of his contention Sri Subbarao strongly relies on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in B. R. Rama Lingappa v. Chief Executive officer, hosadurga (1 ). ( 8 ) SRIYUTHS Gopala Gowda and venkatchalaiah in justifying the impugned notice, urged that S. 117 (2) (a) and the Rules regulating the conduct of special meetings had no application to cases of no-confidence, motions and the ratio in Ramalingappa's case (1) had no application. ( 9 ) IN proof of their assertion that not less than 1/2 th of the total number of members have, sent a written request of no confidence motion on the petitioner, which is denied by him respondents 1 and 2 have not produced any documentary evidence. Even the very requisition notice addressed to the CEO, on the basis off which only he had taken action, dispels the same and probabilises the case of the petitioner. Every one of the circumstances pleaded and the material placed, establish the case of the petitioner that he had not received a notice of no-confidence before the ceo initiated action. ( 10 ) THE Act, the Rules or any other rules made, do not specifically regulate the conduct of no confidence motions to be levelled against the President and Vice-President of a Taluk development Board. A no confidence motion is always considered in a special meeting to be convened for that purpose and in no other. ( 11 ) THE convening of the special meetings by -the Board is regulated by the later part of S. 117 (2) (a) of the act and the Rules only. S. 117 (2) (b) only regulates the period to be specified for calling an ordinary or special meeting. ( 11 ) THE convening of the special meetings by -the Board is regulated by the later part of S. 117 (2) (a) of the act and the Rules only. S. 117 (2) (b) only regulates the period to be specified for calling an ordinary or special meeting. S. 117 (2) (b) is not an independent section but only further the requirements of S. 117 (2) (a) of the Act. In this view, I hold that the convening of a special meeting to consider a no confidence motion against a president of the TDB is governed by s. 117 (2) (a) of the Act and the rules. ( 12 ) S. 117 (2) (a) requires the requisite number of members to address a written request to the President to call for a special meeting. On receipt of such a written request, the Presi dent is empowered to call for a special meeting within 21 days from the date of receipt of such notice. If the President fails to call for a special meeting within the period of 21 days, then only the CEO can convene a special meeting on a date to be specified by the, requisitionists. The CEO cannot act even before the President acts and commits a default. On a default by the president also, the CEO only convenes a meeting decided or specified by the requisitionists. ( 13 ) WHEN the requisite number of members had not addressed a written request to the petitioner the question of his failure to call for a special meeting does not at all arise. In that view, it was not open to the CEO to call for a special meeting on receipt of the requisition addressed to him. Unfortunately the CEO before issuing the special meeting notice has not satisfied himself as to the condition precedents to convene a special meeting. On any view, the special meeting called by the ceo is without jurisdiction aind illegal. ( 14 ) SRI Gowda urged that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy under Ss. 196 and 200 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner. ( 15 ) ON the language of Ss. 196 and 200 of the Act, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy. ( 14 ) SRI Gowda urged that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy under Ss. 196 and 200 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner. ( 15 ) ON the language of Ss. 196 and 200 of the Act, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy. Assuming that to be so, them also, in particular, having regard to the patent error of jurisdiction and illegality committed by the CEO, this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise its jurisdiction. For these reasons, I reject this contention of Sri Gowda. ( 16 ) IN the light of my above discussion, i hold that the impugned special meeting notice issued by the CEO is liable to be quashed. I, therefore, quash the impugned special meeting notice issued by the CEO. But, this order does not prevent the members of the Board to serve a notice of no confidence against the petitioner, in accordance with law. ( 17 ) RULE issued is made absolute. But, in the circumstances of the case, i direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .