Desai, J. - (1.)These four writ petitions were heard finally by consent of all concerned.
(2.)The main point that arises for determination hi these petitions is : If there is only one motion for the election of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan, whether it should be put to vote and when put to vote if it is supported by minority votes whethe it can be said to have been carried. They arise in this way: The petitioner is an elected member of the Marie Mandal Panchayat. After the constitution of the said Mandal Panchayat, the second respondent, who was the prescribed authority, issued notice dated 8-4-1987 under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats (Election of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan) Rules, 1987 (for short the 'Rules') for the election of Pradhan and Upa- Pradhan of the said Mandal Panchayat as per Annexure-C. A motion was filed proposing the name of the petitioner on 18-4-1987. The meeting scheduled to be held on 19-4-1987 as per Annexure-C was adjourned as per Annexure-E. On 20-4-1987 the second respondent issued another notice fixing the election of Pradhan and Upa- Pradhan of the said Mandal Panchayat on 24-4-1987 as per Annexure-E. On 24-4-1987 the motion proposing the name of the petitioner as Pradhan of the said Mandal was put to vote after it was proposed and seconded and 7 persons voted in favour of the motion and 8 persons against it. The prescribed authority (Respondent No. 2) held that the said motion was defeated as noted in Annexure-A. Thereafter on 27-4-1987 respondent No. 2 issued another notice fixing the date of meeting for the election of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan on 5-5-1987 as per Annexure-B. Hence this writ petition for quashing Annexure-B and for declaring the petitioner as elected for the post of Pradhan as his was the only motion.
(3.)The petitioner is the elected member of the Rangenahalli Mandal Panchayat in Hiriyur Taluk. The total number of elected members of the said Mandal Panchayat is 22. The first respondent was appointed as the Prescribed Officer by the third respondent to hold the first meeting for the election of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan of the said Mandal Panchayat. The first respondent issued notice dated 3-4-1987 fixing the date of the first meeting on 11-4-1987 at 11-30 a.m. for the said purpose. A motion proposing the name of the petitioner was filed. It was duly proposed and seconded. There was another motion proposing the name of respondent No. 5 for the post of Pradhan. At the first meeting, the proposer of the motion of respondent No. 5 withdrew that motion. Next, the motion in respect of the petitioner was taken up and the same was proposed and seconded. The motion was put to vote and it secured 9 votes out of 22 members present. The first respondent thereafter declared the petitioner as elected to the post of Pradhan of the said Mandal Panchayat. When the motion for the election of Upa-Pradhan was taken up, number of persons who were outside the meeting hall entered the meeting hall, snatched away the proceedings book and other papers which were with the first respondent and therefore, the first respondent could not hold the meeting further. A complaint was given by the proposer of respondent No. 5. The first respondent also gave a complaint to the police. A case appears to have been registered and it is being investigated. Out of 22 members elected to the said Mandal Panchayat, 9 persons are belonging to Congress (I) and 13 members are belonging to Janata Party and the petitioner belongs to Congress (I) Party. On 28-4-1987 the petitioner received a notice issued by the second respondent fixing the first meeting of the said Mandal Panchayat for election of Pradhan and Upa- Pradhan on 7-5-1987 at 11-30 a.m. as per Annexure-H in so far as it relates to the election of Prahdan.