THIRUNAVUKKARASU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR INSPECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TRICHIRAPPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ appeal is to the order made in W.P.(MD)No.4239/2010, dated 12.04.2010, wherein the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition. THE 3rd respondent is a Town Panchayat governed by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as"the Act"). THE appellant is an elected member of the said Town Panchayat. THE total sanctioned strength of the members of the Council is 15. As of now, there are only 13 members. Admittedly, for Ward No.6, there was no election held. Out of the 13 members, 11 members moved a resolution expressing no confidence against the president. As required under Section 40-A of the Act, a meeting was held presided over by the 2nd respondent. In the said meeting held on 19.03.2010, all the 13 members participated, out of whom 11 members supported the resolution of no confidence against the president, whereas the president and another member voted against it. THE 2nd respondent in his proceedings, dated 19.03.2010, held that the no confidence motion was not passed. According to him, as per Section 40-A of the Act, 4/5th of the members of the sanctioned strength should support such a resolution so as to declare the same as passed. In this case, according to the 2nd respondent, 12 members are required to support the resolution to pass the same, whereas there were only 11 persons who supported and so the no confidence motion was defeated.

(2.) CHALLENGING the above decision of the 2nd respondent, the appellant filed the writ petition. It was contended in the writ petition that since the election to the 6th ward was never conducted, that too, even during the previous elections, the same should not be counted as against the sanctioned strength. Therefore, according to the appellant, the sanctioned strength should be considered only as 14 and therefore the minimum required number of members to support the resolution of no confidence should be not less than 11. In this case, since there were 11 votes in support of the resolution, according to the appellant, the resolution should have been declared as passed. But, the said contention was negatived by the writ Court. That is how the appellant is now before this Court with this writ appeal.

(3.) IN the case on hand, indisputably, the sanctioned strength of the members of the council is 15. Therefore, going by the plain reading of the above section, it can be safely concluded that insofar as the council in question is concerned, a minimum number of 12 members are required to support a no confidence motion to pass the said motion. But, in the instant case, the motion was supported by only 11 members and, therefore, the 2nd respondent was right in concluding that the motion was defeated. But, the learned counsel for the appellant, as we have already stated, would contend that since election to one ward was not at all held due to various reasons, the said vacant post of member shall not be counted as against the sanctioned strength of the council. It may be true that for the reasons best known to the respondents there has been no election held for Ward No.6. But, that will not automatically have the effect of reducing the sanctioned strength of the council to 14.