Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 490 (KAR)

THIMMAMMA v. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

2004-07-31

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2004
( 1 ) THESE petitions are by persons holding the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Turuvekere Taluk Panchayat to avoid facing a no confidence motion for the consideration of which a meeting has been called for in terms of a notice dt. 23. 8. 2004 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Turvekere, (copy at Annexure-C ). ( 2 ) THE 1stpetitioner the President and the 2ndpetitioner the Vice-President of Turvekere Taluk Panchayat are weary of facing the no confidence motion, that they have found that the notice bristles with several irregularities, that the very notice according to them is not by a person who is empowered or expected in law to all for such a meeting and as such have approached this Court for quashing the same. ( 3 ) SRI Nargund, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the petitioners in fact have the support of the members of the Panchayat that in fact a requisition notice had been moved by some of the members of the Panchayat in terms of Annexure-A, that many of those members did meet the President and the President had occasion to satisfy the members that he will be taking action in terms of government schemes for extending the benefits to the people of the Panchayat, that the petitioners were given to the understanding that the members were satisfied with the explanation and as such, they could be continue in their posts, that the notice in fact had become defunct but notwithstanding, to the shock and surprise of the petitioners, the Chief Executive Officer, Turvekere Taluk Panchayat has nevertheless issued the meeting notice at Annexure-C though it was not called for not was it the function of the Chief Executive Officer as he can assume jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer as he can assume jurisdiction only if there is inaction on the part of the President and not otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Chief Executive Office has gone further to issue directions to the members to elect one amongst such persons to preside over such a meeting which is not within his domain. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Chief Executive Office has gone further to issue directions to the members to elect one amongst such persons to preside over such a meeting which is not within his domain. In elaborating this ground, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that until and unless the requisite number of members who point out to the Chief Executive Officer that the President is inactive in respect of a request made by them and in turn make a request to call for a meeting, the Chief Executive Officer cannot call for a meeting, that in the instant case a notice that had been issued earlier was only addressed to the President and the members not having sought for a meeting through a request made to the Chief Executive Officer on the premise that there was default on the part of the President, the chief Executive Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction and that he could not have acted upon a requisition addressed to the President. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel submits that irregularities and illegalities in calling for a meeting was subject matter of consideration before this Court in several decisions including decision of this Court in SMT. SUJAYA RAMAPPA VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA AND ANOTHER (ILR 2003 KAR 2894), another decision in case of SMT. SUBBAMMA AND ANOTHER ( 2003 (3) KCCR 2176 ) and in SANGAPPA VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BIJAPUR DISTRICT AND ANOTHER (ILR 2004 KAR 1102), that this Court has consistently entertained writ petition at the instance of persons like the petitioners on finding that a notice issued for calling for a meeting to consider a motion of no confidence was defective and had not only quashed the notice but had prevented such meetings taking place and the present situation is a fit case wherein this Court should issue a writ of certiorari, quash the notice dt. 23. 8. 2004 and prevent further proceedings pursuant to this notice. ( 5 ) I have taken the view that petitions of this nature and at this stage are not necessary to be entertained in the exercise of writ jurisdiction particularly as it requires examination of factual and legal aspects. 23. 8. 2004 and prevent further proceedings pursuant to this notice. ( 5 ) I have taken the view that petitions of this nature and at this stage are not necessary to be entertained in the exercise of writ jurisdiction particularly as it requires examination of factual and legal aspects. It is also relevant to mention here that persons occupying public posts and who have come through a democratic process can retain such posts so long as they enjoy the support of the requisite number of members who have themselves elected such persons and if the very members express their lack of confidence in the person, then it is high time that they vacate the post. ( 6 ) IT is not doubt true that the entire thing should be carried out in a manner as prescribed by law and by following the prescribed procedure. But it is not the same as to say that even holding of such meetings are to be prevented by this Court as it is rather speculative at this stager as to whether a motion of this nature will be carried or not. Moreover in meetings of this nature particularly for considering a motion of no confidence against a sitting President or vice President, action is on the part of the members who have moved the motion and to support it with the requisite number prescribed by the statute itself. In fact until and unless the motion is supported by the requisite number as proscribed by the statutory provision, it automatically gets defeated and the elected person retains the post. The democratic process should be allowed to function and the process should not be scuttled by this Court even at the threshold on the ground of either irregularities or other illegalities sought to be urged by such persons holding the elected posts. ( 7 ) I am of the clear view that it is not necessary for this Court to entertain such petitions and at this stage in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their rights and remedies in accordance with law and leaving open all contentions, these petitions are dismissed as not one warranting interference at this stage. --- *** --- .