TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THE answer to the short question that arises for consideration in these Writ Petitions turns on a true and correct interpretation of section 47 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The question precisely is whether the president of the Respondent, Mudigeri Town panchayat, was justified in declining to convene a special meeting even when 1/3rd of the total membership of the Panchayat had made a requisition for such a noising and whether the refusal of the president to convene the meeting would entitle the requisitions to convene a meeting themselves. The controversy arises in the following circumstances:- in O. S. No. 10/1997 filed by one Amir Hussain, against the Town panchayat before the Munsiff and JMFC Madugiri, the Panchayat filed a written statement in which the suit property was claimed to be in its ownership. Respondents 4 and 5 who are members of the said Panchayat then filed individual affidavits in the suit supporting the claim made by the plaintiff and contradicting the assertions made on behalf of the Panchayat; in the written statement. The affidavits suggested that the property in dispute between the parties was owned by the plaintiff and not by the Panchayat. This action on the part of the said two members of the Panchayat was viewed with certain amount of trepidation by the petitioners who are also members of the Panchayat. They accordingly moved a requisition before the president of the Panchayat to convene a special meeting to discuss the conduct of the said two respondents. The requisition did not evoke any response from the President, whereupon the Vice president who was one of the requisitionist himself directed the Chief officer convene a special meeting. The Chief Officer surprisingly declined to do so in terms of an endorsement dated 20th April 1999. The reason for not obeying the directions issued to him was that the matter sought to be discussed was subjudice in the suit; mentioned above. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 15055/1999 in this Court, which was disposed of by Rajarathnam J, by order dated 16th of August 1999. The reason for not obeying the directions issued to him was that the matter sought to be discussed was subjudice in the suit; mentioned above. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 15055/1999 in this Court, which was disposed of by Rajarathnam J, by order dated 16th of August 1999. This Court held that the reason given by the Chief Officer for declining to convene the meeting in obedience to the order issued to him was not justified for what was sought to be discussed was the conduct of the Municipal Councilors and not any matter which was pending before the Court. The following paragraph from the order of this court is in this regard apposite:- "what is sought to the discussed is only the conduct of the municipal Councilors with respect to the stand which they have taken and by no stretch of imagination can this amount to discussing the matter that is pending before the Court. If somebody acts adverse to the interests of the Council, it is certainly open to the Council to discuss this matter. What consequence that will follow will depend on the meeting. However, in view of the fact that the learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that a special requisition will be given to the Vice-president, it is not necessary to quash the endorsement. If the Requisitionists make a request to the Vice president, to call for a meeting, the vice-President shall act in accordance with, Law and dispose it of in accordance with Section 47 of the Act. " a fresh requisition was thereafter moved before the president by the petitioners herein on 25th of October, 1999 to which the President responded by issuing an endorsement dated 30th of October, 1999 once again declining to convene the meeting on the ground that the matter was pending in the Civil Court. Aggrieved the petitioners have questioned the validity of the said endorsement in the present Writ petition and prayed for a mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to convene a meeting to discuss the matter setout in the letter of requisition. ( 2 ) MR. Gowda, Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuous lyargued that the view taken by the Vice-president of the Respondent-Panchayat, was wholly unjustified and in total negation of the observations that were made by this Court while disposing of the earlier Writ Petitions. ( 2 ) MR. Gowda, Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuous lyargued that the view taken by the Vice-president of the Respondent-Panchayat, was wholly unjustified and in total negation of the observations that were made by this Court while disposing of the earlier Writ Petitions. He submitted that this Court having already held that the proposed discussion regarding the conduct of the municipal Councillors did not amount to discussing any matter which was subjudice, the president was not justified in repeating the said reason while declining to convene the meeting. Alternatively, he argued that the requisition for the special meeting was supported by the requisite number of members who could in their, own right convene such a meeting if the president or the Vice-president of the panchayat failed to do so. Since the requisitionist constituted 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Panchayat, there was no option for the respondents in particular the Chief Officer ot the panchayat except to convene such a meeting to discuss the issue. There is in my opinion considerable merit in both these submissions. This Court had as noticed earlier in no uncertain terms declared that the question sought to be discussed in the special meeting did not relate to any matter which was subjudice in the Court. The issue sought to be raised related to the conduct of the two Municipal councillors who had filed affidavits contradicting the stand taken by the Panchayat, as regarded the title of the property in dispute before the Civil Court. The view taken by this Court has attained finality as no appeal was filed against the same. In the circumstances neither the President nor the Chief Officer could fall back upon a reason which had been rejected by this Court. I must in fairness to Mr. Prabhakar mention that no effort was made by him to justify the view taken by the President in declining to bold the meeting on the ground that the matter sought to be raised was subjudice as indeed any such effort would have been futile in the light of the order of this Court which had clearly rejected that submission in the earlier round of litigation. The next question than is whether this Court should by itself direct the president of the Panchayat to convene a meeting. The answer to that is also not far to seek. The next question than is whether this Court should by itself direct the president of the Panchayat to convene a meeting. The answer to that is also not far to seek. It is not disputed that a requisition for a meeting made by 1/3rd of the total number of councillors of a Municipal Council/members Panchayat, leaves no option either for the President or the Vice-President of the Panchayat to convene such a meeting. A closer reading of Section 47 (3) of the karnataka Municipalities Act, would in fact show that if the president or the Vice President of the Panchayat do not for any reason convene, a meeting, such a meeting can be convened by 1/3rd of the members of the Panchayat themselves. It was in fact argued on behalf of the respondents by Mr. Patil, that the petitioners could themselves convene the meeting and direct the Chief Officer to issue notices to the members since they constituted more than 1/3rd of the total membership of the Panchayat. Suffice it to say that the right of the petitioners as body of Members of the Panchayat comprising more than 1/3rd of the total membership to convene a special Meeting could not and was not rightly disputed by the respondents. That being so, there is no reason why this Court should decline the mandamus prayed for by them. It is true that such a mandamus may have been unnecessary if the Officers concerned, with the issue of notices were to co-operate with the process leading to the holding of such a meeting. The past events and the stands that have been taken "by the respondents from time to time however leave a lurking suspicion that but for intervention of this Court the petitioners may be forced to once again come back with the third round of petition for directions before a meeting is eventually called. ( 3 ) IT was then argued by Mr. prabhakar, that some one out of the president or the Vice president of the Panchayat shall have no preside over the meeting. He urged that if the president does not choose to preside over the meeting that may be convened, the Vice-Precedent who is one of the requisitionists shall have to do so in the light of the provisions of Section 51. He urged that if the president does not choose to preside over the meeting that may be convened, the Vice-Precedent who is one of the requisitionists shall have to do so in the light of the provisions of Section 51. He contended that the Vice president could not possibly be allowed to preside over a meeting which he had himself requisitioned for the same would amount to his becoming a judge in own cause. Alternatively he argued that the vice-president had no right to vote in the proposed meeting for no such right could be exercised in regard to a motion which was brought up for discussion at his request. There is in my opinion no merit in either one of these submissions. In the first place it is presumptuous or the part of the respondents to argue that the Vice-president would be necessarily required to preside over the meeting. Any such eventuality would arise only if the president declines to preside over the meeting or is not otherwise available to do so. Secondly, even if the Vice-president is required to preside over the meeting on account of the presidents refusal or failure to do so, the question of any such role of the Vice-president; coming In conflict with the principle of natural justice does not arise, A reading of section 51 leaves no doubt that in the absence of the president, the vice-president is under an obligation to preside over every meeting of the Municipal Council. The words "shall preside at every meeting" are mandatory in nature. In the circumstances, the Vice President presides over the meeting out of necessity and in discharge of a statutory obligation. It is fairly well settled that the principles of natural justice would have no application to cases where a person is required to discharge functions arising out of necessity of a given situation. Thirdly, the principles would have no application to situations where an elected body discusses a subject for a decision to be taken by a majority of the votes. It is true that the Vice-president of the panchayat is one of the requisitionists but that does not imply that he becomes a judge in his own cause a situation abhorrent to the concept of justice and fairness. It is true that the Vice-president of the panchayat is one of the requisitionists but that does not imply that he becomes a judge in his own cause a situation abhorrent to the concept of justice and fairness. So also the argument that the Vice president should have no right to vote at any such meeting ignores the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 51, according to which the president or the person presiding over the meeting has the right to exercise a second or casting vote in the case of equality of votes. It follows that if the Vice-president eventually is required to preside over the meeting and in the event of the matter being put to vote he will have a casting vote within the meaning of Section 51 (3) of the act. ( 4 ) IN the result this petition succeeds and is here by allowed. The impugned endorsement issued by the President of the respondent Panchayat is hereby quashed and the Chief Officer of the Panchayat directed to issue notices for a special meetfng requisitioned by the petitioners in their capacity as l/3rd of the total membership of the Parichayat within 30 days from the date a copy of this order is made available to the chief officer by the Petitioners. In the circumstances however the parties shall bear their own costs. --- *** --- .