TMI Blog1993 (5) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner before the District Magistrate, Nainital. This notice was given on 19th November, 1990. 3. On 4-12-1990 the District Magistrate issued a notice to the members of the Municipal Board which was despatched from Nainital on 6-12-1990 whereby 22nd December; 1990 was fixed for consideration of motion of no confidence. In pursuance of the notice issued by the District Magistrate a meeting of the Municipal Board was held on 22nd December, 1990 in which nine members participated out of whom eight members voted in favour of motion of no confidence. The sole question which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the motion of no confidence cannot be taken to have been passed against the petitioner as it has not been passed by a majority of more than one-half of the total number of the members of the Board as required by S. 87-A of the Act and Consequently the resolution passed against the petitioner is wholly invalid. 4. This petition was initially heard by Division Bench of this Court which held :-- In Mangala Prasad Jaiswal v. District Magistrate, Gorakhpur) a Full Bench of this Court has taken the view that sub-sec. (12) of S. 87-A requires that the quoru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of votes cast in favour of the resolution or it may refer to the difference in number between the votes cast for and those cast against the resolution. If the sub-section had provided that motion of no confidence shall be deemed to have been carried only when it has been passed by a majority of, say, five votes, then it would be clear that the word 'majority' is used in the latter sense and that the resolution would not be passed unless the votes in favour of it exceeded those against it by at least five-If the word 'majority' has however been used in that sense in the present sub-section then it would follow that a no confidence resolution can, in a case where the total number of members of the Board is twenty one, be passed only when the number of members voting for it is greater by. eleven than the number voting against it. This in our opinion cannot have been the intention of the legislature. A parallel is, we think, to be found in the Indian Companies Act, sub-sec. (1) of S. 81 of which provides that resolution shall be an extraordinary resolution when it has been passed by a majority of not less than three fourths of such members entitled to vote as are pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted, submit his resignation in the manner prescribed by S. 47. and further S.87A, after S.87, was for the first time added. Relevant sub-sections of S. 87A are quoted below ;-- 87A. Discussion of motions of non-confidence-- (1) A motion that the Board shall adopt a resolution expressing non-confidence in its Chairman may be discussed and voted upon at any meeting : Provided that no such motion shall be discussed or voted upon at any meeting unless the Chairman or the Board shall have received seven clear days' notice in writing signed by not less than one-third of the members of Board that there is an intention to discuss such motion. (2) If the Chairman or Board receives such notice as aforesaid the Chairman shall, at the first meeting held after the expiry of a period of seven days from the notice of receipt of the notice, place such motion before the Board as the first item on agenda for such meeting and give the Board an opportunity of discussing it and voting upon it. (3) If the Board shall have adopted by a Majority consisting of more than one half of the members of the Board for the time being a resolution expressing non-confidence in its Chairman, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han half of the total number of members of the Board, and when it has been so carried the Provincial Government shall by notification in- the official Gazette remove the Chairman, and the Chairman shall be deemed to have vacated office with effect from the date of publication of the notification. (13) If the motion is not carried by majority as aforesaid, or if the meeting cannot b held for want of a quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion of no-confidence in the same Chairman shall be received until after the expiry of a period of twelve months from the date of the meeting. ............ ............ ............ By Amending Act, U.P. Act No.XXVII of 1964, S. 87A has further been amended, which is quoted below:-- (1) at the end of sub-sec. (11) for the full stop , a colon shall be substituted and the following shall be added as a proviso thereto : 'Provided that if the President refuses of avoids to take delivery of the copies so forwarded, the same shall be affixed at the outer door of his last known residence and he shall be deemed to have received the same at the time such affixation is made', and (2) in sub-sec. (13), between the word 'qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an two-thirds' the words 'shall be more than one half shall be substituted. By U.P. Ordinance No. 23 of 1992 again S. 87A was amended, which is quoted below :-- In S. 87A of the principal Act- (a) in sub-sec. (12), for the words 'more than one half the words 'two thirds' shall be substituted; (b) in sub-sections(13) and (14), for the words, 'one year' wherever they occur the words, 'two years' and in sub-sec. (13), for the words, 'shall be more than one half the words, 'shall not be less than two-thirds', shall be substituted. (Underlining by us) However, this amendment would not be applicable in the present case, which is of a date prior to this amendment. 9. The aforesaid various amendments in the Act reveal that the legislature has been using both the words majority and then the qualifying words more than one half or two-thirds of the total number of members of the Board. It is significant by U.P. Act No. 2 of 1926 S. 47A as introduced has used the words by a majority consisting of not less than one half of the members of the Board. We further find similarly in various other Acts the legislature has us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the members of the Board and various amendments both under this Act and other Acts as hereinbefore we have referred to. This repeated use of the words more than one-half followed by the use of the word majority cannot be held to be either superfluous or used as an abundant caution, nor could it be held to be redundant. Majority under the Act has not been defined. In Webster's Third New International dictionary the word majority is defined as :-- the quality or state of being greater; a number greater than half of a total; the excess of such a greater number over the remainder of the total ;.. ..... In the Radom House Dictionary, the unabridged edition, the majority is defined as:-- ... ..the number larger than half the total; a number of voters or votes -- more than half of the total number; the amount by which the greater number as of votes surpasses the remainder. Similarly, in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, the word majority is defined thus :-- The state or fact of being greater; the number by which in voting, the votes cast on one side exceeds those cast on the other...... The word majority speaks of greater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Supreme Court. Thus, we hold that the aforesaid words used in S. 87A(2) of the Act, have been deliberately used. 14. Next, coming to the facts in the present case, if the words more than one hair are not superfluous then what meaning is to be given on the facts of the present case, where admittedly the total strength of the members of the Board is fifteen. In the referring order, the Division Bench held, which is also the argument on behalf of the petitioner, that half of the members out of fifteen cannot be seven and half which is an impossibility. Therefore, it has to be rounded to eight and if this be the half the use of the words more than half would only be nine members. This interpretation to the provisions of this Act, with respect, we do not accept. Rounding of a figure is only where a particular figure has to be arrived at. It may be for some relevance where half of the total number is necessary to be arrived at and in case seven could not be half and mathematically seven and half is half of fifteen then the principle of rounding of could be applied. In fact, various provisions or rules provide the rounding of where such contingency has to be arrived at, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fining either the general object of the legislature or the meaning of its language in any particular passage it is obvious that the intention which appears to be must in accord with convenience, reason, justice and legal principles, should in all cases of doubtful significance be presumed to be true. 19. The legislative intent behind Section 87A(12) of the Municipalities Act appears to be to fix the requisite majority of the members of the Board, the failure to enjoy the confidence of which majority will result in the ouster of the President from the office. In order to determine this majority, the total number of the members of the Board has to be taken into account and the total number of the votes cast in favour of the resolution or cast against the resolution have to be taken into account in order to find out which number is more than one half of the total number of the members of the Board. It is the ultimate result of the counting of the votes at the meeting which has to be taken into account and the emphasis is clearly on the number. In order to arrive at the figure of the majority as envisaged under S. 87 A(12) of the Act it is not at all permissible to determine the one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the numbers and not members. In a given situation, if the total number of the members of the Board happens to be in the odd number even in that case the figure more than half could be arrived at without increasing artificially any number in order to find out the half. It may be usefully noticed that in the case of Jivendra Nath Kaul v. Collector/ District Magistrate, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 576, decided by the Apex Court the total number of the members of the Board was 16. The Apex Court in that case obviously therefore, the half of the number was held to be 8 and it was observed that the motion of no confidence could only be passed if it was supported by more than 8 votes. It was further emphasised that natural meaning to the expression contained in sub-section (12) of S. 87-A of the Act should be given and strained reasoning should not be adopted for appreciating the plain meaning flowing from the simple language. 23. In the circumstances, therefore, it seems to me that it is impossible to approve the view where under when the total number of members of the Board is 15, the number of half of the member is taken to be 8. This will require a strained reasoning which is wholl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
