Judgment :- 1. Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No.1 and 2 and file memo of appearance in four weeks. 2. The petitioner is before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by the notice dated 21.12.2012 (Annexure-B) whereby meeting for electing the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha to Besagarahalli Gramapanchayat Maddur Taluk is convened and scheduled on 03.01.2013. 3. The case put forth by the petitioner is that as contemplated under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, the term of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha is for a period of 30 months. If that aspect of the matter kept in view, the term of the present Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha would come to end only on 07.01.2013 and it is in that context contended that the meeting convened on 03.01.2013 is prior to the said date and therefore, the meeting notice issued is not sustainable. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the meeting notice would not call for interference in a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, when the date for the meeting has already been scheduled since it has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that this Court will not interfere with the calendar of events. once the same has been notified by the authorities. Therefore, if at all the petitioner has any grievance, the same can only be assailed in an appropriate election petition in accordance with law and not in a petition as presently done. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned notice dated 21.12.2012. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty.