Judgment:
ORDER
1. Though these petitions are posted for consideration of interlocutory application, as per the request of the learned Counsels on both sides, the main matter itself has been taken up for final disposal.
2. Writ Petition No. 8470 of 2001 is filed by the Adhyaksha and Writ Petition No. 8846 of 2001 is filed by the Upadhyaksha of Jagalur Taluk Panchayat questioning the validity of the Meeting Notice dated 14-2-2001 issued by the 1st respondent (vide Annexure-F) and for quashing the resolution dated 22-2-2001 accepting the 'No Confidence' Motion against both the petitioners. Since the facts and the question of law raised in both the petitions are the same, both the writ petitions are taken up together for consideration.
3. It is undisputed that Jagalur Taluk Panchayat consists of 13 elected members apart from the nominated members as per the provisions of Section 120 of the Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were elected as Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha on 13-7-2000 and their term fixed as per law is 20 months. Thereafter, on 15-1-2001 respondents 3 to 10 who are also elected members gave a requisition to the Adhyaksha to convene a Special Meeting of the Taluk Pancbayat, as they proposed to move 'No Confidence' Motion against both Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. Accordingly, the Executive Officer/respondent 2 issued a notice dated 25-1-2001 intimating all the Members that such a Special Meeting would be held on 2-2-2001. Aggrieved by this notice the petitioner (in W.P. No. 8470 of 2001) approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 4093 of 2001. This Court on 1-2-2001 while issuing notice as to why rule nisi should not be issued granted interim order of stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the Special Meeting Notice dated 25-1-2001. It is to be mentioned here itself that the said writ petition was finally disposed of on 7-2-2001, vide Annexure-D, holding that as the notice (Annexure-B) became infructuous because of the interim order granted, the said writ petition itself does not survive for consideration. It is thereafter a fresh notice dated 14-2-2001 came to be issued by the 2nd respondent fixing the date of meeting as 22-2-2001. On that day, i.e., 22-2-2001, a meeting was held and a resolution came to be passed accepting the 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petitions.
4. Sri B.K. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, contended that as this Court had held that the notice dated 25-1-2001 has become infructuous, respondents 3 to 10 ought to have given a fresh requisition to convene a meeting for 'No Confidence' Motion to the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and failure to do so would render the further action as illegal being contrary to the provisions of the Act. Nextly, drawing my attention to Section 141(2)(a) of the Act it is contended that under the said provision in all 30 days' time starting from the date of requisition is the time-limit for initiating action of 'No Confidence'. According to the learned Counsel, admittedly the requisition was issued on 16-1-2001 and as such the meeting called on 22-2-2001 is beyond the period of 30 days as prescribed under Section 141 of the Act. The learned Counsel also attacked the proceeding on the ground that, though under Section 120(2) of the Act as the nominated members have also a right to participate and vote in the 'No Confidence' Motion Meeting and also in any of the proceedings of the Panchayat, it is man-dastardly required that they too should have been issued with the notice of the meeting dated 22-2-2001 and failure to do so would be amounting to illegality in the procedure. In this regard, learned Counsel relied upon the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Lakshmanpa Kallappa Balaganur and Another v State of Karnataka and Another , wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that non-issuance of notice to the nominated members or non-elected members is bad in law. At the outset it is to be stated that the decision in Lakshmappa's case, supra, has been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Another v Lakshmappa Kallappa Balaganur and Another, and as such the decision of the learned Single Judge relied upon by the learned Counsel is no more a good law. Though the learned Counsel could not dispute overruling of the learned Single Judge's decision, he wants this Court to consider the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raees Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. Nextly, the learned Counsel contended that even if the nominated members have no right of voting in such meeting as laid down by this Court in the case of Shanthakumari and Another v City Municipal Council, Chickmagalur, they are entitled for the notice of the meeting convened for considering the ''No Confidence' Motion. Further, drawing my attention to the Circular dated 30-10-1996 issued by the State Government (Annexure-E), it is contended that once the notice issued by the 2nd respondent convening the meeting has become infructuous, in the absence of fresh notice issued on the basis of respondents 3 to 10 calling upon the 'No Confidence' Motion is not only time barred in view of Section 141(2)(a) of the Act, but also illegal. It is also contended by the learned Counsel that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Raees Ahmad's case, supra, even if the nominated members have no right tovote, while considering the majority opinion, their number should also be considered as part of the total number of the Panchayat.
5. On the other hand, Sri Shivakumar, learned Counsel for respondent 1-Panchayat, and Sri Kantharaju, learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 10, argued in support of the resolution of 'No Confidence' as well as the validity of the proceedings leading to it. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that no doubt the notice of 'No Confidence' Motion dated 2-2-2001 met its end, because of the interim order granted by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4093 of 2001, but that does not mean the requisition issued on 15-1-2001 also came to an end. Taking me through the order of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, it is contended that nowhere this Court has given a finding as to what would happen to the requisition dated 15-1-2001. Hence, it is contended that no fresh requisition need be given again as the earlier requisition in the form of requisition dated 15-1-2001 is still subsisting. Nextly, it is contended that even after the dismissal of the writ petition, again fresh notice has been issued on 14-2-2001 by respondent 2 and this was in pursuance of another requisition by respondents 3 to 10 dated 25-1-2001. As such, it is contended that there is no illegality whatsoever in the proceedings and hence the writ petitions are liable to be rejected.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side in detail, the answer to the point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are as follows :
Insofar as the contention of the requirement of notice to the nominated members is concerned, if one looks into Section 120(2) of the Act, it makes it clear that no such notice is required for the nominated members. Section 120(2) of the Act reads thus:
'120. Constitution of Taluk Panchayat.-
.......
(2) The members of the House of People, the State Legislative Assembly, the Council of States and the Legislative Council and the Adhyaksha of Grama Panchayats referred to clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be entitled to take part in the proceedings of, and vote at, the meetings of Taluk Panchayat except at a special meeting convened for the purpose of election of Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas under sub-section (1) of Section 138 or for considering a no confidence motion under sub-section (3) of Section 140'.
This is subject to an exception and this exception of prohibiting taking part in the proceedings and voting in the Taluk Panchayat is in respect of special meeting convened for the purpose of election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha under Section 138(1) or while considering 'No Confidence' Motion under Section 140 of the Act. On a bare reading of this section and other provisions it can safely be held that once there is no requirement under the law for the nominated members to take part in the proceedings or at the time of voting on 'No Confidence' Motion, issuance of notice either of the requisition or of the 'No Confidence'Motion does not arise at all. The reliance in this regard placed by the learned Counsel on the decision in Shanthakumari's case, supra, is in my view, not proper. The said decision was in respect of a case arising under the Karnataka Municipalities Act. Under Section 11 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act there was no such prohibition for taking part or for voting in respect of election or in respect of 'No Confidence' Motion. Under Section 120(2) when a specific restriction is placed on the nominated member for not participating or voting in 'No Confidence' Motion, in my view, the question of issuing notice to such nominated member does not arise for consideration. Similarly, as already noted, the principle laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Lak-sharnappa's case, supra, no longer survives for consideration for the simple reason that the said decision of the learned Single Judge has been reversed by the Division Bench (vide Lakshmappa Kallappa Bala-ganur's case, supra).
7. Insofar as the decision in Raees Ahmad's case, supra, is concerned, again the Apex Court was dealing of a case arising under Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act wherein under Section 87-A there is a specific provision to the effect 'a majority of two-third of the total number of members of the municipality'. Interpreting these wordings the Apex Court observed that though the nominated members have no right to vote, but that does not mean that they cease to be the members of the Municipality or that their number should be ignored in determining whether the President has lost the confidence of two-thirds of the members. Having considered the provisions of Section 140(3) of the Act as well as the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act referred to by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, what is striking is the difference in the words used in both provisions. As noted, in the Uttar Pradesh Municipality the majority required is two-thirds of the total number of Members of the Municipalities. Whereas in the present Act it is confined to only the elected members. What is relevant to be considered in the present section is 'by a majority of the total number of elected members of the Taluk Panchayat'. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Raees Ahmad's case, supra, for the specific incorporation of all the elected members in the present case. When the legislature has specifically stated that 'majority of the total number of the elected members', it cannot be interpreted in any other manner so as to enlarge the scope to include all the members like the nominated members who have been specifically excluded from the number. Hence, this decision is also of no avail to the petitioners.
8. The last contention of the learned Counsel in this regard, viz., that the meeting notice have been issued after the period of 30 days from the date and as such the notice is illegal. In this regard, the learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of M. Muniyappa and Another v State of Karnataka and Others. It is to be noted that, though this Court was considering the limitation regarding 'No Confidence'Motion under the Act itself, but it pertains to Grama Panchayat and not to Taluk Panchayat. In that decision this Court interpreted Section 49 of the Act which pertains to Grama Panchayat as well as Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayatraj (Motion of No Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1964 and held that the rule itself provides limitation of 30 days and once notice of 'No Confidence' Motion is given Motion cannot be passed after the expiry of the said period of 30 days, 'since Rule 3 of the said Rules is mandatory. It is to be noted that even this decision is inapplicable, as there are no rules similar to the 'No Confidence' Motion in respect of Gram Panchayat have been framed in respect of Taluk Panchayat. In Muniyappa's case, supra, the learned Single Judge was required to consider the interpretation of Rule 3 and Section 49 pertaining to Gram Panchayat. But, the present case does not arise under those provisions. The provision applicable to the present case is only under Section 141(2)(a) of the Act. As stated earlier, there are no rules in respect of 'No Confidence' Motion of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Taluk Panchayat. But, the section itself makes it clear as to the limitation prescribed. Interpreting sub-section (2)(a) of Section 141 of the Act, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that there are two requirements of action to be taken by the concerned within 15 days which makes in all 30 days' limitation. According to the learned Counsel, the first 15 days is applicable so far as Adhyaksha is concerned, i.e., when the requisition of 'No Confidence' is given to Adhyaksha, he has to call a Special Meeting within 15 days of receipt of such requisition and in case he does not comply with the same, it is open for the Upadhyaksha or l/3rd of the total members themselves to call a Special Meeting not later than 15 days from the date of presentation of such requisition. Hence, it is contended that in all it makes 30 days' period that would be the time within which the entire exercise of giving requisition of 'No Confidence' and passing of resolution of either acceptance or rejection of 'No Confidence' has to be completed and according to the learned Counsel, as the requisition was given on 15-1-2001, 'No Confidence' Motion ought to have been passed before the expiry of 30 days, i.e., 15-2-2001, and since the present resolution was passed on 22-2-2001 the same is beyond the time prescribed and as such the same is liable to be quashed. On going through the provisions of Section 141(2)(b) of the Act, I am of the view that the interpretation of the provision made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is incorrect. No doubt, in the first part of sub-section (2)(a) of Section 141 of ths Act what is stated is that from the date of receipt of requisition of 'No Confidence' within 15 days the Adhyaksha is required to call a special meeting. But, in a case where he does not do it, as in the present case, it is open for the Upadhyaksha or even one-third number of members to call a meeting and as indicated in the latter part of the said sub-section, on non-compliance on the part of the Adhyaksha, the Executive Officer is required to take action necessary for convening the meeting. The only restriction for calling such meeting either by the Upadhyaksha or one-third number of outstanding members is that for such meeting to be convened the Executive Officer is required to initiate action within 15days from the date of presentation of such requisition. There is prima facie no restriction of time-limit placed thereafter once the Adhyaksha refused to call a Special Meeting. As such considering the latter portion of sub-section (2)(a) of Section 141 of the Act, I am not able to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that this section where 15 days period prescribed is for completing the 'No Confidence' Motion proceedings. On looking into the requisition dated 15-2-2001 (Annexure-A) and the notice dated 14-2-2001 (Annexure-F) it is clear that in view of the fact that as per the requisition dated 15-1-2001 as the petitioners have failed to even convene a Special Meeting, another requisition was given by respondents 3 to 10 on 25-1-2001 and in accordance with that the meeting was fixed to be held on 2-2-2001. However, as this notice and fixation of meeting on 2-2-2001 came to be challenged before this Court and the same became infructuous because of the interim order granted by this Court, the meeting to be held on 2-2-2001 came to be postponed and as such a fresh notice convening the meeting on 22-2-2001 has been issued by the 2nd respondent. As such, I see no illegality in initiation of action on the ground of limitation. I do not find any merit to quash either the notice dated 14-2-2001 or the subsequent resolution dated 22-2-2001. Hence, I find no merit in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and accordingly the writ petitions are rejected being devoid of merits.
9. Before parting with the case I deem it necessary to direct the Government to frame the necessary rules regarding 'No Confidence' Motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Taluk Panchayat as has been done in the case of Gram Panchayat, to avoid the complication as raised in the present case. It is hoped that the Government will take action expeditiously in this regard.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.