S. P. BHARUCHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE question that is REFERRED TO the Full Bench for consideration reads thus :"whether the provision under S. 47 (3) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 requiring the Deputy Commissioner to give to members of a Mandal Panchayat notice of a meeting for consideration of a motion of no-confidence against the Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan 'of not less than 15 clear days of such meeting' is mandatory or directory?"

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts that give rise to the reference are these : The writ petitioner (the first respondent to the appeal) is the elected Pradhan of the Mandal Panchayat which is the third respondent to the appeal. On 9/08/1991 a majority of the members of the Mandal Panchayat forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagaram sub-Division (the second respondent to the appeal) a notice requiring him to call a meeting to consider a No-confidence motion against the first respondent. The second respondent issued a notice on 19/08/1991 calling such meeting on 5/09/1991. Admittedly, the notice to the individual members of the Mandal Panchayat were posted on 24/08/1991 and received by them on 27/08/1991. The first respondent thereupon filed the writ petition to quash the notice dated 19/08/1991 on the ground that the convening of the meeting in pursuance thereof was illegal in that the notice had not been served as required by S. 47 (3) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 i. e. , it was not a notice of "not less than 15 clear days". At the earliest stage of the writ petition, the learned single Judge stayed the meeting that was to be held on 5/09/1991. This appeal was filed against the order of stay. At the admission stage thereof the order of stay was varied; the second respondent was permitted to hold the meeting on 5/09/1991, but was directed not to announce the result and to keep it in a sealed cover until further orders. We understand that the meeting could not be held on 5/09/1991 but was held on a later date and that the result has not been declared but has been preserved as directed.

( 3 ) WHEN the appeal reached hearing before a Division Bench, attention was drawn to the Division Bench judgment dated 6/11/1990 in W. A. No. 2162 of 1990 which held that the provisions of S. 47 (3) requiring the Assistant Commissioner to give the members of a Mandal Panchayat notice of a meeting for consideration of a motion of No-confidence against the Pradhan of not less than 15 clear days of such meeting was mandatory. On the other hand, attention was invited to S. 55 (2) of the Act, which prima facie suggested that the provisions of S. 47 (3) was merely directory. In that view of the matter, the reference to the Full Bench was made.

( 4 ) IT is necessary immediately to set out the provisions of S. 47 :"47. Motion of no-confidence against Pradhana or Upa-Pradhana of Mandal Panchayat :- (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Pradhana or Upa-Pradhana may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following sub-sections. (2) A written notice of intention to make the motion, in such form as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one half of the total number of members of the Mandal Panchyat, together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner. (3) The Assistant Commissioner shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of a motion at the office of the Mandal Panchayat on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-sec. (2) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed : provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a court it shall be adjourned, and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document