CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions the resolution dated 14-5-1997, removing the president and the vice-president of the city municipal council, nippani by passing a no confidence motion has been challenged. ( 2 ) THE total strength of the city municipal council, nippani, is 36. The petitioners in writ petition nos. 16533 and 16738 of 1997, were elected as president and vice-president respectively on 13-2-1996. Thereafter 26 councillors delivered the notice of intention to move the resolution as against the president and the vice-president to the personal assistant of the president on 2-5-1997. The said notice was placed before president on 3-5-1997 to take appropriate steps. This fact is disputed by the president stating that it was placed before her on 5-5-1997 and not on 3-5-1997. It is seen that the president on 5-5-1997 asked the commissioner to call for the meeting fixing the date of meeting as 14-5-1997 to consider the motion of no confidence. Accordingly, the meeting was called fixing the date of meeting as 14-5-1997. In the said meeting a resolution was passed by 2/3rd majority removing the president and the vice-president from their posts of president and vice-president respectively. The said resolution was challenged by way of preferring a revision petition before the divisional commissioner under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' ). The divisional commissioner dismissed the petition holding that there is no illegality in passing the resolution of no confidence motion. Therefore, the petitioners before the divisional commissioner are before this court. ( 3 ) ONE councillor who has not challenged the resolution by way of revision petition before the divisional commissioner has filed writ petition No. 13886 of 1997 directly challenging the resolution. Since in all these petitions the question involved is common, all these petitions were heard together. ( 4 ) SRI h. b. datar, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, submitted that the councillors and the president of the municipal council had no notice of 10 days of intention to move the resolution as required under Section 42 (9) proviso of the ACT and the resolution ultimately passed on the basis of defective notice is illegal. In support of this proposition he cited a decision in case of Janardhana v Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur. In support of this proposition he cited a decision in case of Janardhana v Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur. In the said decision the division bench has held as follows:in the case on hand, the notice of meeting is dated 5-5-1997 and the meeting was held on 14-5-1997. Therefore, it is contended that as there is no 10 days gap between the issue of the notice and the holding of the meeting, the resolution ultimately passed on the basis of the defective notice is illegal. ( 5 ) SRI jayakumar s. Patil, learned counsel, appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that the law laid down in the said decision has no binding effect, as it has been rendered without noticing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Narasimhiah v H. C. Singri Gowda and others. In the above said decision the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider a provision which is identical with that of the proviso to Section 42 (9) of the act. Section 42 (9) of the ACT reads as follows:proviso to Section 27 (3) of the mysore town Municipalities Act reads as follows:this proviso is identical with that of the proviso to Section 42 (9) of the act. The Supreme Court while interpreting the said Section has held as follows:in the case on hand also the notice that is required to be given as per Section 42 (9) is only to the president and not to the councillors. Therefore, the judgment rendered by the division bench referred to above is given per incurium as it has been rendered without noticing the decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of Sri datar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that a notice of ten days is required to be given to the president, vice-president and the councillors as per the proviso referred to above. ( 6 ) SECTION 47 provides for calling a meeting. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47 reads as follows:from the reading of the above said provision it is clear that after giving notice of intention of moving a motion of no confidence as required under proviso to Section 42 (9) of the act, the meeting shall be called for as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the act. In the case on hand, even taking the date of notice as 5-5-1997, the meeting held on 14-5-1997 is valid as there is no breach of law in passing the resolution. ( 7 ) THE notice of motion of no confidence was signed by 24 members of the council. That consists of more than two-thirds of the total number of members of the municipal council. The resolution has also been carried by two-thirds majority as seen from the resolution. When such being the case, there is no reason to impose a person who has no confidence of more than two-thirds of the members of the municipal council. Therefore, in my opinion, these are not the cases which call for interference under article 226 of the constitution of India. Accordingly, these petitions are rejected. --- *** --- .