1. This petition is directed against the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 7-12-1982 passed in VPC Appeal 24 of 1982-83. The facts leading to that order may be briefly stated as follows:-
The petitioner herein was the Chairman of the Village Panchayat of Pothaganahally -respondent 3 herein. The Vice-Chairman of the said Panchayat supported by 9 other members issued notice of their intention to move a 'no confidence' motion against the Chairman on 6-4-1981. They sent the notices to: (1) the Chairman, the present petitioner in this Court, (2) the Secretary of the Panchayat and (3) the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Board. All the notices were received on 9-4-1981 by the respective addressees (this fact is not disputed before me by the leaned Counsel appearing for, The petitioner). There after, no meeting was called by the Chairman in accordance with Rule 5 of the No-Confidence Motion Against Chairman or Vice-Chairman of Panchayat (Procedure) Rules, 1951. In accordance with the provisions made in sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Karnataka Village Panchayat and Local Boards Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act the Chief Executive Officer called the meeting on 22-5-1981 and at that meeting the confidence motion was carried and the petitioner, who was the Chairman, was removed from the Office. He appealed to the Assistant Commissioner against such removal under the provisions of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed before the Divisional Commissioner which also came to be dismissed holding that the meeting held at which the no-confidence motion was passed against the petitioner who at the relevant time, was the Chairman, was legal and proper. Aggrieved by the same the present petition is filed.
2. The only two arguments advanced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows:-
(1) The notice was not served on the petitioner by the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned and therefore, in the eye of law, there was no notice served in accordance with law.
(2) Assuming but not conceding that notice was brought to the notice of the Chairman by the Secretary on 13-4-1981, the meeting called by the Chief Executive Officer on 22-5-1981 was short by two days as 30 days had not lapsed in accordance with the provision contained in sub-see. (1) of Section 32 of the Act and therefore, the meeting should be held to be illegal.
3. In my view, both the contentions are liable to be rejected for the following reasons and they are:-
No-Confidence Motion Against Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a Panchayat (Procedure Rules 1951, Rule 2 thereof provides for the manner in which the notice of no confidence motion should be served on the Secretary. Similarly, Rule 5 provides that the Secretary on receipt of such notice should immediately deliver a copy of such notice to the Chairman as well as the Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat. Thin, Rule 5 provides for the Chairman - convening a special meeting for the purpose of considering the no-confidence motion.
4. Now, the Rules must be read together as a whole to know the procedure contemplated by the Legislature for the convening of a meeting to move the no-confidence motion against the Chairman or Vice-Chairman. Undoubtedly notice is not required to be served under Rule 2 of the aforesaid mentioned Rules on the Chairman or even on the Chief Executive Officer. But now, there is no express prohibition in the Rule that it should not be so served on other persons than the Secretary of the Panchayat. On the facts of this case, all the three concerned, namely, the Chief Executive Officer, the Chairman and the Secretary have been duly served with the notice on 9-4-1981 in regard to which there is no dispute at all. Therefore, the Chairman had notice on 9-4-1981 itself of the no-confidence motion pro-posed against him. That notice does not suffer from any legal defect.
5. The object of Rules 2 and 3 of the aforementioned Rules is that the Chairman should have notice of the proposal to move a motion of no confidence against him and no more than that. If he was served with a copy of that notice directly, I shall necessarily hold that the purpose of the rule is more than amply served. That it should be brought to the notice of the petitioner only by the Secretary of the panchayat, I do not see it as a mandatory, requirement of Rule 2 or Rule 3 of the Rules aforementioned. The object of any notice is to give the person concerned of the intent of the action some people propose to take in respect of that person depending on the circumstances of each case. Therefore, on a proper understanding of the Rules in question, the Chairman had notice of the proposed no-confidence motion against him on 9-4-1981 on the admitted facts. Therefore, 30 days) lapsed on the 8th May, 1981 and as he had not called a meeting by that time, the Chief Executive Officer was correct in calling the meeting on 22-5-1981. Even if the latter date, i.e.13-4-1981 is reckoned, then also the meeting held on 22-5-1981 will be a meeting held well after 30 days from 13-4-1981. Even on that ground also the petition must fail.
6. There is no merit in this petition and the petitioner who has lost confidence of his panchayat should not make a serious grievance of it.
7. Therefore, this petition is rejected.
8. Petition dismissed.