EDWINGSON BARAH Vs. HENRY COTTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the Petitioners have asked for an appropriate writ quashing a notice purported to fee issued by Respondent No. 1 and communicated to the Petitioners by the Secretary, District Council. United Khasi -Jaintia Hills, Autonomous District Shillong, fixing a date for the election of the Chief Executive Member of the Executive Committee of the said District Council. The notice says that as a no -confidence motion has been passed against the Executive Committee, the Chief Executive Member of the Executive Committee has to be elected and the notice has fixed up the date on which the election is to be held. The Petitioners who are members of the Executive Committee of the District Council of the United Khasi -Jatntla Hills contend that the notice is invalid.

(2.) MAINLY two points have been urged by the counsel for the Petitioners. Firstly It is contended that the Secretary had no jurisdiction to issue the notice purporting to sign it on behalf of the Chair -man of the Executive Committee. Secondly it is urged that the no confidence resolution which is alleged to have been passed on the 14th September 1963, was not validly passed on the facts alleged by the opposite parties in their own affidavit. As we are Inclined to accept the second contention of the Petitioners, it is not necessary to deal with the first point raised by them. Rule 22(1) of the Assam Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called the Rules) provides as follows:

(3.) THE contention of Dr. Medhl for the opposite parties is that the no -confidence motion could be passed by the majority of the members present at the meeting. The question centers round the interpretation of Rule 22 (1) of the Rules the interpretation put by the counsel for the opposite parties is accepted, then the words a majority of the members present' will have to be inserted in place of the words a 'majority of the members of the District Council' in the rule. The language in our opinion, is clear and unless the resolution passed by a majority of the members, of the District Council, it cannot be said that It has been validly passed. Dr. Medhl contends that If the framers of the rule intended that it has to be passed by a majority of the members of the District Council, then the language would have been as "the majority of the total number of members of the District Count -the As we have already Indicated, the use of the words a majority of the members of the District Council" clearly implies that it is not to be passed by a simple majority of the members present at the meeting, in the rules, it would " appear that wherever the framers of the rules have intended that a resolution should be passed by the majority or certain percentage of the members present, they have used that expression clearly such, as In Rule No. 71 (2), which provides that if the Chairman is of opinion that the motion is in order, he shall "read the motion to the Council and shall request those members who are in favour of leave being granted to rise la their places and, If not less than one -fourth of the members present rise accordingly, the Chairman shall intimate that leave is granted and that the motion will be taken on such day, not being more than two days and not less than twenty -four hours from the time at which leave is asked for as he may appoint. Reliance is then placed on Rule 25 which reads as follows: