CHIMNA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was elected Chairman of the Municipal Board, Pipar City in an Election held on 29-8-95. There were at that time 25 Wards of the Municipal Board and one member each was elected from these wards. A no confidence motion was brought by 14 members of the Board on 14-5-97. Under the law a no confidence motion has to be carried by 2/3 majority of the total number of members of the Board. At the meeting at which the no-confidence motion was put to vote 15 members voted in favour of the motion expressing no-confidence against the appellant. An objection was taken at the meeting that two members had lost their membership because of exclusion of their wards from the Municipal limits on publication of the notification in the extraordinary Gazette in this regard. This objection was upheld and those two members were not allowed to vote. The no confidence motion was declared to have failed because 15 members only had voted in favour of the motion which did not constitute 2/3 of total number of the members of the Board which was 23.

(2.) Smt. Laxmi Kachhawaha and Mohd. Khalid Belim Teli, two members who were disqualified from voting on the ground that their wards had been excluded from the Municipal Limits filed a petition before the learned single Judge for a declaration that the no-confidence motion against the appellant was duly passed and he was not entitled to continue as Chairman of the Municipal Board. The exclusion of the petitioners from the membership of the Municipal Board was also sought to be quashed. The notification excluding the two wards from the limits of the Municipal Board was also sought to be declared illegal and quashed. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer declaring that the no-confidence motion had failed and consequently held that the appellant had ceased to hold the office of the Chairman, Municipal Board as the no-confidence motion was validly passed against him. The appellant has challenged this order of the learned single Judge in this appeal.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the two wards were legally excluded from the limits of the Municipal Board and as a consequence of the notification excluding those wards the members representing those wards in the Municipal Board had also validly ceased to hold their office. Thus according to the learned counsel the effective strength of the Municipal Board was 23 and this was expected by the learned single Judge also. However, the learned single Judge held that 2/3 of 23 members being 15.33, 15 members would be sufficient for passing the no-confidence motion as a living person cannot be divided into fractions and .33 of a person cannot be accepted to vote. This view taken by the learned single Judge is erroneous according to the learned counsel for the appellant.