LAXMI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The election of the Municipal Board Pipar city was held on 28-8-1995 and 25 ward members were elected from different wards. The Municipal Board consist of 25 members. In the election respondent No. 5 Shri Chimna Ram was elected as Chairman of the Municipal Board, Pipar city. Out of 25 members, 14 ward members gave a written notice of their intention to make no confidence against the Chairman. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pipar city convened special meeting of the Municipal Board to consider no confidence motion brought by 14 members on 14-5-1997 at 11 a.m. in the office of the Municipal Board Pipar city to be presided over by him. Objection was raised against the two ward members Shri Mohmmad Khalid and Smt. Sahu Devi that they ceased to be members of Municipal Board and therefore, they should be debarred from attending the meeting. The objection was accepted and they were debarred from attending the meeting. Thereafter no confidence motion was taken up and 15 ward members have voted in favour of no confidence motion against the respondent No. 5, the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Pipar city. By impugned order the respondent No. 4 has declared that no confi-dence motion has failed. According to respon-dent No. 4, the total membership of the Pipar city was 23 and, therefore, no confidence motion to be effective, has to be passed by 16 ward mem-bers. Only 15 ward members have voted in favour of the no confidence motion against the respondent No.5 which is less than 2/3 of the total number of the members and, therefore, motion is not carried.

(2.) Total membership of the Municipal Board, Pipar city is 23. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of no Confidence against Chairman or Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974 requires, that motion of no confidence is to be carried by 2/3 of the total number of the members thus, for carrying no confidence motion, 2/3 of the total number of the Municipal Board has to vote in favour of no confidence motion. A very interesting question has been raised in this case, twenty three is the number of the members of the Board. 2/3 of 23 would be 15.33 whereas 15 members have voted in favour of no confidence motion and on the basis of that it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the members voted has not reached the requisite figure of 2/3 members, it was short by .33 and, therefore, the competent authority has rightly declared that the no confidence motion failed.

(3.) 2/3 number of the voters of the total membership comes in fraction, which is less than 1/2 of one number, this is what shall be the position, whether the fraction of one which is lesser than one half shall be ignored while calculating 2/3 member or the next number shall be considered for arriving at the figure of 2/3 members. Requirement of the law is that motion of no confidence has to be passed by 2/3 members of the total members of the Municipal Board. The votes given by the Board members could not be casted in the fraction of one vote which will always be in one complete number. .33 is less than 1 and 1/2 and not one complete number, according to me if fraction forms part of one number, is more than 1/2, the number shall be increased to next higher number and in case the fraction consists of 1/2 or less than 1/2 the fraction shall be ignored. The voters who have voted against the respondent No. 5 are 15 in number, 2/3 of the total membership comes to 15.33. .33 is the fraction less than 1/2 of one vote, therefore, it would be ignored. 2/3 of total members of Municipal Board, Pipar City in given circumstances shall be considered to be 15. As 15 persons have voted against the respondent No. 5 in the meeting the motion of no confidence was passed against him. The order of competent authority declaring that no confidence motion has failed is not in confirmation of law.