It was served on Councillor Mirza Mohammad Hussain on the 12th October and on the Councillor R. G. Vaidyanatha on the 11th October 1963.
Thirteen out of the them sent a request to the President to companyvene a special general meeting to discuss a resolution expressing numberconfidence in him as President.
The second ground urged was that the meeting cannot be said to be properly held as he was number allowed to preside and the Vice President presided.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated December 6, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
He claimed to preside over the meeting.
226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing the proceedings of the meeting which culminat ed in the resolution of numberconfidence against him.
On three of the Councillors, viz.,
The High Court held that on the materials before it, it was number possible to pronounce as to the circumstances under which the Vice President presided at the meeting.
On fifteen of the twenty Councillors the numberice was personally served on that very date, i.e., the 10th October.
The President, Mr. Narasimhiah was among them.
A numberice under the Vice Presidents signature stating that it was proposed to hold a special general body meeting of the Municipality on the 14th October 1963 at 10 A.M. in the office premises and asking the members to be present in time was served on the Councillors.
That is the main question which arises for decision in this appeal.
On November 2, 1963 Mr. Narasimhiah, the President of the Council applied to the High Court of Mysore under Art.
At a special general meeting of the Municipal Council held on October 14, 1963, a resolution was passed in the following terms This Council has numberconfidence in the Municipal President of Holenarsipur Municipality.
the President Narasimhiah, Mr. Dasappa and Mr. Sanniah, the numberice was served on the 13th October.
As however he did number take any steps for companyvening the meeting the Vice President acted in the matter calling a meeting to discuss the resoulation to express numberconfidence in the President.
But, ultimately, he appears to have left the meeting.
Holenarsipur Municipality has twenty Councillors.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The first is that the requisite three days numberice was number served on all the members and so the meeting was number validly held.
This request was handed over to the President on 25th September 1963.
One companyy of the numberice was also posted up at the Municipal Office as required by 27 3 of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951 herein after referred to as the Act .
223 of 1964.
The numberice bore the date 10th October 1963.
The appellant was elected as the President of Holenarsipur Municipality on September 11, 1962.
The meeting was then held under the presidentship of the Vice President Mr. Singri Gowda.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. Is the requirement of three clear days numberice for the holding of a special general meeting as embodied in s. 27 3 of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act 1951, a mandatory provision?
Prayer were made also for some companysequential reliefs.
2273 of 1963.
S. Krishna Rao and Girish Chandra, for respondents No.
K. Venkataranga Iyengar and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
April 1, 1964.
Thirdly, it was urged that the requisition for moving the resolution of numberconfidence did number companyply with the proviso to s.23 9 of the Act as 15 days numberice was number given of the intention to move the resolution.
When the meeting was held on October 14, 1963, nineteen of the twenty Councillors were present.
The judgment in Writ Petition No.
1, 2, 4 10, 12 15.
The numberconfidence motion against the President was moved and was passed, fif teen members having voted for it.
In challenging the legality of the proceedings of this meeting of 14th October and the validity of the resolution of numberconfidence passed there, the petitioner urged three principal grounds.
and thus s.24 1 a of the Act was companytravened.
