(1.) BOTH these petitions have been filed for quashing the No Confidence Motion dated 31.03.2001 (Annex. 5). Since common questions of law are involved in these petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment taking S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1610/2001 as leading case.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner Guman Mal Parmar contested the election of Ward Member of Municipal Board, Bhinmal and on being elected as such, he was further elected as the Chairman of the said Board in 1999. A No-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner, on which a meeting was held on 31.03.2001 for its consideration. THE District Collector nominated respondent No.4 to preside over the meeting. Seventeen members supported the motion and it was declared to have been passed. Hence this petition.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, have submitted that "total number" or "whole number" does not include the nomi-nated members and the M.L.A. and, thus, as 2/3 of the elected members are required for passing the resolution of no-confidence motion, the impugned resolution does not require any interference. According to them, even if it is so required, the local M.L.A. and two nominated members had not taken oath, as mandatorily required u/s. 61 of the Act, and they cannot be held to be members in strict sense and as one of the elected members, namely Sri Raja Ram Bhil, was under suspension at the relevant time so he has also to be excluded while counting the total number.