Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt Damayanthi, was the elected President of Vitla Town Panchayat, having assumed charge on 16.01.2019 after an election. The Town Panchayat had 18 members elected in 2016. The respondent Chief Officer issued a special general meeting notice dated 02.03.2021 scheduling a meeting on 12.03.2021 at 11.00 a.m. to consider a no-confidence motion against the petitioner, moved by 12 members. The petitioner challenged the notice by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notice on the ground that the mandatory 10 days’ notice of intention to move the resolution as required by the first proviso to Section 42(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, was not given. She argued that excluding the date of issuance, only 9 days or less remained, thus violating the provision. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment in Janardhana v. Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur (1982 Kar.L.J. 60) which held that a resolution passed without clear 10 days’ notice is invalid. The respondents argued that Janardhana was held per incuriam in Subhash Tukaram Sangaonkar v. State of Karnataka (1998 (2) Kar.L.J. 26) and placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda (AIR 1966 SC 330) and Smt. Manjula v. State of Karnataka. The central legal issue was whether the 10-day notice period is mandatory or directory and whether the President could insist on strict compliance. The court discussed the object of the notice provision, noting that the Supreme Court in Narasimhiah had held that the purpose is to enable councillors to arrange their affairs to attend the meeting, and such provisions are generally directory. The excerpt does not contain the final decision or the operative order of the court.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - No Confidence Motion - Validity of Notice Period - Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Section 42(9) - The dispute pertained to a special general meeting notice dated 02.03.2021 for a meeting on 12.03.2021 to move a no-confidence motion against the President of Vitla Town Panchayat. The petitioner contended that the 10-day notice required under the first proviso to Section 42(9) was not complied with as only 9 days’ clear notice was given. The court examined precedents including Janardhana v. Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur (held the notice period mandatory) and Subhash Tukaram Sangaonkar v. State of Karnataka (holding Janardhana per incuriam). The court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda which observed that the object of notice is to enable councillors to attend and that provisions of this nature are generally directory. No final order was recorded in the excerpt provided. (Paras 1-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the 10 days' notice prescribed in the proviso to Section 42(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act is directory or mandatory, and whether the President against whom a No Confidence Motion is moved can insist on strict compliance of the 10-day period.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Interpretation of mandatory versus directory statutory provisions
- computation of notice period under proviso to Section 42(9) of Karnataka Municipalities Act
- 1964
- applicability of General Clauses Act for exclusion of date
