BIRAJ MISTRI Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER PILIBHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The crux of the controversy involved in this writ petition is as to whether out of 14. 9 members constitute two-third majority or not for the purposes of passing a vote of no-confidence against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 33-B (5) (viii) of the Rules framed under the Act which provides that a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan can be removed by a majority of two-third of the members present and voting in a meeting called for passing a vote of no-confidence against the Pradhan.

(2.) In the present case, out of 14 members who were present. 9 voted in favour of the motion. From an arithmetical calculation two-third of 14 comes of 9.33. A voter cannot be divided into fraction or pieces. Hence, 9.33 is to be rounded off either to 9 or to 10. If roundlng off is done to 9, it will not be a majority of two-third. Section 14 (1) of the Act read with Rule 33B (5) (viii) of the Rules provides that the motion of no-confidence should be carried out by a majority of two-third of the members present in voting. In view of this, roundlng off the two-third majority would be 10 and unless 10 members vote in favour of the no-confidence motion, it cannot be said that the motion has been carried out because it does not make up the required two-third majority. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Wahid Ullah Khan v. District Magistrate. Nainital and others, (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1107, has held that out of 15 members, 8 and not 9 constitute a majority. There was a motion of no-confidence against the President of the Municipal Board in which 15 members had voted.

(3.) The view which I have taken is supported by two decisions of this Court : (1) in Smt. Meera Devi v. State of U, P. and others. Writ Petition No. 40873 of 1997, decided by an Hon'ble single Judge on 7.1.1998 and (2) in Arunandra Singh v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Unnao and others. 1997 (3] AWC 1662, decided on 16.5.1997 by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court.