Judgment :- In these cases, the petitioners have called in question the validity of the order at Annexure ‘F’ dated 18.10.2011 whereby the first respondent has stayed the meeting convened by the 4th respondent for consideration of the motion of no confidence against the President and the Vice-President of the Town Municipal Council, Tiptur (‘TMC’ for short). 2. The petitioners are the members of the TMC, Tiptur. The petitioners along with certain other members of the TMC constituting more than one third of the whole number of Councillors submitted a representation to the President expressing want of no confidence in him and the Vice-President as per Annexure ‘A’ dated 17.8.2011. Since the President failed to convene a special general meeting for consideration of the said motion of no confidence, they submitted a similar motion of no confidence to the Vice-President of the TMC as per Annexure ‘B’ dated 3.9.2011. The Vice-President also did not take any action to convene the special general meeting. Simultaneously, the petitioners called for such a meeting by submitting a representation as per Annexure ‘C’ dated 4.9.2011 to the Commissioner of TMC, Tiptur, the 4th respondent herein requiring him to give notice to the Councillors and take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting. The Commissioner convened the meeting for consideration of the motion of no confidence by issuing notices to the Councillors of the TMC as per Annexure ‘D’ dated 7.10.2011. The 4th respondent fixed the date for considering the motion of no confidence on 21.10.2011. The 5th respondent filed an application under Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (‘Act’ for short) before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, the 1st respondent herein seeking stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the said notice. As noticed above, the first respondent has passed an interim order as per Annexure ‘F’ dated 18.10.2011. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 306 of the Act cannot be pressed into service for seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to the notice at Annexure ‘D’. It is argued that the order of the first respondent at Annexure ‘F’ is totally without jurisdiction. 4. Sri K. Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 has sought to justify the impugned order. 5. It is argued that the order of the first respondent at Annexure ‘F’ is totally without jurisdiction. 4. Sri K. Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 has sought to justify the impugned order. 5. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to note the relevant statutory provisions in the light of which the present controversy has to be resolved. Section 42(9) of the Act as amended by Act No.31/2003, which has come into force w.e.f. 20.8.2003, provides for passing of the resolution expressing want of no confidence in the President or the Vice-President of a municipal council. It says that every President and every Vice-President of a municipal council shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of the total number of Councillors having voting right and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the Councillors having voting right present and voting at a special general meeting convened for the purpose. The first proviso to the said provision states that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-third of the total number of Councillors having voting right and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution. 6. Chapter III of the Act deals with transaction of business by the Municipal Council. Section 47 of the Act lays down the procedure for holding the ordinary general meeting and special general meeting. Sub-section (2) of Section 47 states that the President may, whenever he thinks fit, and shall, upon the written request of not less than one-third of the whole number of Councillors and for a date not more than fifteen days after the presentation of such request, call a special general meeting. Sub-section (3) of Section 47 states that if the President fails to call a special general meeting as provided in sub-section (2), the Vice-President or one-third of the whole number of Councillors may call such meeting for a day not more than thirty days after the presentation of such request and require the Chief Officer or the Municipal Commissioner to give notice to the Councillors and take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting. 7. 7. Section 306 of the Act authorizes the Deputy Commissioner for suspending execution of orders, etc., of the municipal council, which is as under: “306. Deputy Commissioner’s power of suspending execution of orders, etc., of municipal councils:- (1) If, in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner, the execution of any order or resolution of a town municipal council, or the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of a town municipal council, is unlawful or is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public, or to lead to a breach of the peace, he may, by order in writing under his signature, suspend the execution or prohibit the doing thereof. (2) When a Deputy Commissioner makes any order under this Section, he shall forthwith forward to Government and to the Director of Municipal Administration and to the municipal council affected thereby a copy of the order, with a statement of the reasons for making it; and it shall be in the discretion of the Government to rescind the order, or to direct that it shall continue in force with or without modification, permanently or for such period as it think fit; Provided that no order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under this Section shall be confirmed, revised or modified by the Government without giving the municipal council, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the said order.” 8. Under sub-section (1) of Section 306, the Deputy Commissioner is authorized to suspend or prohibit the execution of any order or resolution of a town municipal council, or the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of a town municipal council, which is unlawful or is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public, or to lead to a breach of the peace. Thus, in order to attract sub-section (1) of Section 306, the order or the resolution of the TMC or the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of a town municipal council should be unlawful or is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or to lead to a breach of the peace. When the Deputy Commissioner makes any order under sub-section (1), he has to forthwith forward to Government and to the Director of Municipal Administration and to the municipal council affected thereby a copy of the order, with a statement of the reasons for making it; and it shall be in the discretion of the Government to rescind the order, or to direct that it shall continue in force with or without modification, permanently or for such period as it thinks fit, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 306. Proviso to the said provision states that no order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under sub-section (1) shall be confirmed, revised or modified by the Government without giving the municipal council a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the said order. 9. It is not in dispute that the members of the TMC constituting more than one third of the whole number of Councillors of the TMC moved the motion of no confidence firstly before the President, who did not take any action as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Act. Thereafter, they submitted the motion of no confidence to the Vice-President. Simultaneously, they took steps to call for a special general meeting under sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Act and required the Commissioner, TMC, to give notice to the Councillors and take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting. Accordingly, the Municipal Commissioner issued notice to the Councillors at Annexure ‘D’ dated 7.10.2011 informing them that 13 members of the TMC have filed a representation expressing want of confidence in the President and the Vice-President and that a special general meeting is convened on 21.10.2011 at 11.00 a.m. The said notice has been challenged by the President of the TMC before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order staying all further proceedings pursuant to the said notice. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether the Deputy Commissioner has the jurisdiction to entertain an application/appeal/revision for seeking suspension or prohibition of convening the meeting for consideration of the representation expressing want of no confidence in the President or the Vice-President of the TMC or the resolution passed under Section 42(9) of the Act? 10. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether the Deputy Commissioner has the jurisdiction to entertain an application/appeal/revision for seeking suspension or prohibition of convening the meeting for consideration of the representation expressing want of no confidence in the President or the Vice-President of the TMC or the resolution passed under Section 42(9) of the Act? 10. Inorder to attract sub-section (1) of Section 306, the execution of the order or resolution of a Town Municipal Council or the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of the Town Municipal Council should be unlawful or is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or to lead to a breach of peace. The notice issued under Section 47(3) cannot come within the purview of sub-section (1) of Section 306 of the Act as it is neither an order nor a resolution. Issuance of a notice under the said provision cannot be treated as unlawful or is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to public or to lead to a breach of peace. In a democratic system, what matters is the persons getting elected to the office of the President or the Vice-President, can remain in the office so long as they enjoy the support of the requisite number of members of the Council. Whether the President or the Vice-President has lost confidence of the majority of the Councillors or not has to be determined in the special general meeting. Once the majority of total number of Councillors having voting right and by a majority of not less than two third of the Councillors having voting right present and voting at a special general meeting convened for the purpose express want of confidence in the President or the Vice-President as the case may be, he shall forthwith deemed to have vacated his office. By exercise of the power under sub-section (1) of Section 306 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner cannot stall the proceedings initiated by the Councillors nor can be interfere with the resolution of the Council passed under Section 42(9). In my view, the order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure ‘F’ dated 18.10.2011 is totally without jurisdiction. By exercise of the power under sub-section (1) of Section 306 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner cannot stall the proceedings initiated by the Councillors nor can be interfere with the resolution of the Council passed under Section 42(9). In my view, the order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure ‘F’ dated 18.10.2011 is totally without jurisdiction. The Commissioner, TMC, has to fix a fresh date for convening the meeting for consideration of the representation expressing want of confidence in accordance with law. 11. In the light of the above discussions, I pass the following: Order (i) Writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The order at Annexure ‘F passed by the first respondent dated 18.10.2011 is hereby quashed. (ii) The Commissioner, Town Municipal Council the 4th respondent herein is directed to issue fresh notice to the Councillors of the Town Municipal Council, Tiptur, fixing a fresh date for convening the meeting for consideration of the representation expressing want of confidence and conclude the proceedings in accordance with law. (iii) In view of the disposal of the writ petitions as above, I.A.No.1/2011 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.