ORDER : R. DEVDAS, J. 1. The petitioner is the President of Vitala Town Panchayath. The election to the Town Municipality was held in the year 2016 where 18 members were elected from different wards for a period of five years. The petitioner was elected as the President in the election held on 14.01.2019 and she took charge on 16.01.2019. Her grievance is that the respondent-Chief Officer of the Town Panchayath has issued a meeting notice dated 02.03.2021 scheduling a special general meeting on 12.03.2021 at 11.00 a.m., following a request to move No Confidence Motion given by 12 members of the Town Panchayat against the petitioner. 2. The main ground on which the writ petition is filed is that in terms of the first proviso to Section 42(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, ten days’ notice has to be given of the intention to move the resolution and this mandatory provision has not been followed. It is submitted that the notice is dated 02.03.2021 and the meeting is scheduled to be held on 12.03.2021 and therefore in terms of the General Clauses Act, if the date on which the notice is issued is excluded, only 9 days or lesser than 9 days notice is given. 3. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of a Division Bench in the case of Janardhana Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur, in W.A.No.2392/1982 decided on 01.10.1982 reported in the short notes of cases 1982 Kar.L.J. 60. It is submitted that the Division Bench has held that atleast 10 days notice of the no confidence motion is required to be given and if there is no clear 10 days notice between the issuance of the notice and the holding of the meeting, any resolution passed at a meeting called before the expiry of 10 days, whatever may be the resolution of the meeting, cannot be considered as valid. It was held that a resolution passed in breach of a statutory provision cannot be upheld. The High Court in exercise of its discretion cannot refuse to quash the invalid resolution. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel Sri K.Chandranath Ariga, appearing for the respondent-Members of the Town Panchayath who have moved the No Confidence Motion submits that the decision in the case of Janardhana Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur was held to be per incuriam, in Subhash Tukaram Sangaonkar Vs. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel Sri K.Chandranath Ariga, appearing for the respondent-Members of the Town Panchayath who have moved the No Confidence Motion submits that the decision in the case of Janardhana Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur was held to be per incuriam, in Subhash Tukaram Sangaonkar Vs. State of Karnataka and Another 1998 (2) Kar.L.J. 26 . The learned Counsel would submit that the learned Single Judge noticed a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Narasimhiah Vs. H.C.Singri Gowda and Others reported in AIR 1966 SC 330 and therefore proceeded to hold that it would suffice if notice of intention of moving a motion of No Confidence as required under proviso to Section 42(9) of the Act is given and the meeting is called for, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Act. Another decision in the case of Smt.Manjula Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.10233/2014 decided on 05.03.2014 was also pressed into service. 5. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers. 6. What is required to be considered is whether the 10 days’ notice as prescribed in the proviso to Section 42(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act is directory or mandatory and whether the President/Vice-President against whom the No Confidence Motion is moved, can be permitted to press into service the fulfillment of giving ten days notice. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Narasimhiah (supra) was also considering the case of an elected President of a Municipality who was aggrieved by a special general meeting and a resolution passed by the members expressing no confidence in the Municipal President. The request for expressing no confidence was moved by the requisite number of members to the President. The President did not take steps for convening the meeting and therefore, the Vice-President acted in the matter calling a meeting to discuss the resolution to express No Confidence in the President. A notice was issued by the Vice President proposing to hold a special general meeting of the Municipality in the office premises and asking the members to be present in time. 15 of the 20 Councillors were served with notice personally on the very same day when the notice was issued. Three other Councillors and the President were served with the notice 2 days subsequently. 15 of the 20 Councillors were served with notice personally on the very same day when the notice was issued. Three other Councillors and the President were served with the notice 2 days subsequently. Although the President was present in the meeting, however after some time he left the meeting and therefore, the Vice President held the meeting. The no confidence meeting was moved against the President and the resolution was passed. Challenging the legality of the proceedings of the meeting and the resolution passed by the Members of the Municipality, the President had approached the High Court. Three grounds were raised. Firstly, that the requisite three days notice was not served on all the members and so the meeting was not validly held. The second ground urged was that the meeting cannot be said to be properly held as the President was not allowed to preside and the Vice-President presided and thus, Section 24(1)(a) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951, was contravened. Thirdly, it was urged that the request for moving the resolution for No Confidence did not comply with the proviso to Section 23(9) of the Act, as 15 days’ notice was not given of the intention to move the resolution. 8. The case of the petitioner regarding 15 days notice not been given of the intention to move the resolution did not appear to have been pressed at the hearing before the High Court, as it was noticed by the Supreme Court that there was no mention in the judgment of any such argument. On the question as to whether failure to serve three days’ notice of the meeting on all the Councillors, this Court had followed its decision in another writ petition in W.P.No.2280/1963 and rejected the petitioner’s contention. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that this Court took a view that as the notice were sent on the 10th of October they must be held to have been given on that date even though some of the members were actually served on the 11th, 12th and 13th; but apart from that this Court was of the opinion that the provision about three days’ notice was only directory and not mandatory and so the omission to give notice would not affect the validity of the resolution. 9. 9. The main contention that three days notice of the special general meeting was not given and so the meeting should be declared invalid was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the question as to whether it was mandatory or directory was considered elaborately. It was held that the use of the word ‘shall’ is not conclusive on the question. As in all the other matters of statutory construction, the decision of this question depends on the ascertainment of the legislature’s intention. The Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to hold that the main object of giving the notice is to make it possible for the Councillors to so arrange their other business as to be able to attend the meeting. For an ordinary general meeting the notice provided is of seven clear days. That is expected to give enough time for the purpose. But a lesser period of three clear days is considered sufficient for “special general meetings” generally. It was held that the obvious reason for providing a shorter period of such meetings is that these are considered more important meetings and Councillors are expected to make it convenient to attend to these meetings even at the cost of some inconvenience to themselves. Where the special general meeting is to dispose of some matter of great urgency it is considered that a period of even less than three clear days’ notice would be sufficient. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noticed Section 36 of the Act, which provided that no resolution of a municipal council or any committee appointed under the Act shall be deemed invalid on account of any irregularity in the service of notice upon any councillor or member, provided that the proceedings of the municipal council or committee were not prejudicially affected by such irregularity. Considering the said provision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is reasonable to think that the service of notice mentioned in this provision refers to the giving of notice to the Councillors. Quite clearly, any irregularity in the manner of giving the notice would be covered by the words “irregularity in the service of the notice upon any Councillor”. Considering the said provision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is reasonable to think that the service of notice mentioned in this provision refers to the giving of notice to the Councillors. Quite clearly, any irregularity in the manner of giving the notice would be covered by the words “irregularity in the service of the notice upon any Councillor”. It was therefore held that it appears reasonable to think that in making such a provision in Section 36 the legislature was not thinking only of irregularity of the mode of service but also of the omission to give notice of the full period as required. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noticed the English law and proceeded to hold that the legislature may not have gone to the length of saying that the failure to serve the notice will not make the meeting invalid. It has instead said that any irregularity in the service of notice would not make a resolution of the Council invalid provided that the proceedings were not prejudicially affected by any irregularity. The logic of making such a provision in respect of irregularity in the service of notice becomes strong if the fact that the notice given was short of the required period is considered an irregularity. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that the fact that some of the Councillors received less than three clear day’s notice of the general meeting did not by itself make the proceedings of the meeting or the resolution passed therein invalid. It went on to hold that it would be invalid only if the proceedings were prejudicially affected by such irregularity. It was noticed that 19 of the 20 Councillors attended the meeting and out of the 19, 15 voted in favour of the resolution of no-confidence against the appellant and therefore, there was absolutely no reason for thinking that the proceedings of the meeting were prejudicially affected by the “irregularity in the service of notice”. 11. In Smt.Manjula’s case (supra) conflicting decisions in the case of Mallamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR 2002 Kar 4253; Abdul Razak Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere, Sub Division, 2005 (1) KLJ 230 ; M.Puttegowda and Another Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, 2002(1)KLJ 16 (DB) and Smt.Laxmavva Vs. The State of Karnataka, ILR 2007 KAR 1028 were considered. In Smt.Manjula’s case (supra) conflicting decisions in the case of Mallamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR 2002 Kar 4253; Abdul Razak Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere, Sub Division, 2005 (1) KLJ 230 ; M.Puttegowda and Another Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, 2002(1)KLJ 16 (DB) and Smt.Laxmavva Vs. The State of Karnataka, ILR 2007 KAR 1028 were considered. Going by the decision in the case of Mallamma and Smt.Laxmavva, the co-ordinate Bench went on to hold that mere attaching a copy of the proposed Motion would be duplication of the work and that by itself cannot be a ground to set at naught the exercise of democratic right of the members and when the majority of the members make their intention clear, mere non-enclosing a copy of the proposed Motion would be only irregularity and does not cause any prejudice to other side, particularly, on account of the notice also incorporating the proposal of No Confidence Motion and thus, there were substantive compliance of the requirement of Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Rules, 1994. 12. When the matter was taken up for admission, this Court by order dated 10.03.2021 permitted the meeting scheduled to be held on 12.03.2021 at 11.00 a.m. to go on as scheduled, however the respondent-authorities were directed not to declare the results or the outcome of the meeting. The results were directed to be kept in sealed cover and await further directions of this Court. 13. On the merits of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court squarely covers the issue. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 42 is directory and not mandatory. Moreover, the provision of issuance of notice and the time required is for the benefit of the members of the Council/Municipality. Even in their case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a few members were not served with the notice like the other members and there was a shortage of 2-3 days, that by itself cannot be held to be prejudicial even to the members, let alone the President against whom the motion of no confidence is sought to be moved. The President, at any rate, cannot have a grievance that the notice which was issued was not of ten clear days. The President, at any rate, cannot have a grievance that the notice which was issued was not of ten clear days. As ascertained, factually, out of the 18 members of the Town Municipality 13 have attended the meeting and their decision has been put in a sealed cover. 14. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 15. The respondent Chief Officer-Vitla Town Panchayath, is directed to open the sealed cover and declare the results. The further action consequent to the declaration of the outcome of the meeting shall be given effect to by the Chief Officer, in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.