Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1341 (KAR)

Hanumanth S/o Mareppa v. State of Karnataka

2017-10-03

S.SUJATHA

body2017
ORDER : The matter is taken up for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 05.09.2017 issued by respondent No.3 calling for a special general body meeting fixing the date as 15.09.2017 for the purpose of discussing no confidence motion against Adhyaksha/petitioner herein of Pattana Panchayat, Balaganur. 3. The main challenge to the issue herein is in as much as the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 in issuing the notice calling for a meeting of no confidence, as contrary to Sections 42 and 47 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. 4. As could be seen from the records, 9 councilors of Pattana Panchayat Ward nearly 1/3rd of the councilors have submitted a request before the Chief Officer-respondent No.2 to convene a special general meeting. On the basis of which, the Vice President Upadhyaksha – respondent No.3 has issued the notice calling upon a meeting of no confidence. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Devika Siddalingagowda and Others vs. The Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Tumkur District, Tumkur and Others has categorically held that the requirement of law as stipulated in Section 47(2) is that, if a request is made by not less than onethird of the whole number of Councillors who have voting right, the President shall call a special general meeting. In other words, such a request cannot be made to any other person other than the President. The request has to be made to the President, so that he will come to know the intention behind such request and convene such special general meeting. It is held that, the Legislature in its wisdom has cautiously avoided the word “personally” while enacting the Law/Act. Therefore, the presentation of the written request, though to be addressed to the President, need not be presented to the President personally. It is not the requirement of law. On the contrary, such request has to be made to the President and presented to him, may be either personally or by sending it by post or by handing over such request in his office. When once such request is presented, then, Section 47(2) comes into operation and casts an obligation on the President to convene a special general meeting. Any other interpretation would make Section 47(2) redundant. 6. When once such request is presented, then, Section 47(2) comes into operation and casts an obligation on the President to convene a special general meeting. Any other interpretation would make Section 47(2) redundant. 6. In the light of the said law declared by this Court the facts of the present case are examined. Indisputably, the request is addressed to the Chief Officer – respondent No.2 not to the President. As such, the mandatory requirement of Section 47 (2) of the Act has not been complied with to cast an obligation on the President to convene special general body meeting. 7. In the circumstances, the meeting notice impugned herein at AnnexureD issued by the Vice President i.e. respondent No.3 is without authority of law and requires to be set aside. Accordingly, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. However, liberty is reserved to the councillors of the Pattana Panchayat, Balaganur to present a written request to the President for convening a special general body meeting for no confidence either personally or by sending it by post or handing over such request in his office. 8. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is allowed.