1999 JTR(SC) 1469
2000 AIR(SC) 583 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 5 ; 2000 1 AllCJ 608 ; 2000 AllLJ 239 ; 2000 1 AWC 531 ; 1999 9 JT 613 ; 2000 91 RD 76 ; 1999 7 Scale 440 ; 2000 1 SCC 432 ; 1999 Supp5 SCR 226 ; 2000 1 UJ 103 ; 2000 1 UPLBEC 433 ; 1999 10 Supreme 178
1999(10) Supreme 178
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S.P. Bharucha and S.S. Mohammad Quadri, JJ.
Raees Ahmad -Appellant
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7182 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20404/1998)
Decided on 10-12-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : B.L. Yadav, Sr. Advocate, Shakeel Ahmad, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, Mir Akhtar Hussain, Ms. Tamina Punvai, Joseph Pookkatt, Prashant Kumar, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
In determining the question as to whether no-confidence motion against President of Municipality under the U.P. Municipalities Act has been carried by two third majority, strength of nominated members cannot be excluded, though such nominated members may not have voting right.
Act Referred :UTTAR PRADESH MUNICIPALITIES ACT : S.87(a)
(A) Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 mandates that a motion of no-confidence against the President is carried only when passed by a majority of two-thirds of the total number of members of the municipality, with Section 9(D) defining composition and expressly excluding nominated members from voting rights. The statutory phrase total number of members of the municipality encompasses nominated members for the purpose of calculating the required two-thirds majority, even though they cannot vote, as their inclusion is necessary to determine whether the threshold under Section 87-A(12) is met.
(B) The core legal principles are that the calculation of a no-confidence motion must adhere strictly to the statutory formula, the composition of the municipality includes nominated members for counting purposes despite their non-voting status, and the plain meaning of the statute prevails over interpretative contentions that exclude non-voting members from the denominator.
Facts of the case:
The Nagar Panchayat, Jalalabad, at the relevant time comprised 21 members: one President, fifteen elected members, two ex-officio members, and three nominated members. A no-confidence motion against the President was moved and passed with the support of thirteen members. The motion was held to have been carried, but the decision was challenged before the High Court on the ground that the three nominated members, lacking voting rights, should not be counted for determining the two-thirds majority. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that excluding nominated members invalidly lowered the required threshold.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in law by excluding nominated members from the total member count for the purpose of applying Section 87-A(12). The plain construction of the statute requires that nominated members be included in the total number of members, even though they cannot vote, to ascertain whether a two-thirds majority in favour of the motion has been achieved.
Issues:
Whether nominated members, who have no right to vote, must be counted as part of the total number of members of the municipality for determining whether a motion of no-confidence against the President has been carried under Section 87-A(12) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.
Ratio Decidendi:
The phrase total number of members of the municipality in Section 87-A(12) includes nominated members for the purpose of calculating the two-thirds majority, although their voting rights are excluded under Section 9(D), because their inclusion is essential to ascertain compliance with the statutory threshold.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the writ petition is allowed in the prayed relief, holding that the no-confidence motion was not carried as required by law.
(A) Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 mandates that a motion of no-confidence against the President is carried only when passed by a majority of two-thirds of the total number of members of the municipality, with Section 9(D) defining composition and expressly excluding nominated members from voting rights. The statutory phrase total number of members of the municipality encompasses nominated members for the purpose of calculating the required two-thirds majority, even though they cannot vote, as their inclusion is necessary to determine whether the threshold under Section 87-A(12) is met.
(B) The core legal principles are that the calculation of a no-confidence motion must adhere strictly to the statutory formula, the composition of the municipality includes nominated members for counting purposes despite their non-voting status, and the plain meaning of the statute prevails over interpretative contentions that exclude non-voting members from the denominator.
Facts of the case:
The Nagar Panchayat, Jalalabad, at the relevant time comprised 21 members: one President, fifteen elected members, two ex-officio members, and three nominated members. A no-confidence motion against the President was moved and passed with the support of thirteen members. The motion was held to have been carried, but the decision was challenged before the High Court on the ground that the three nominated members, lacking voting rights, should not be counted for determining the two-thirds majority. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that excluding nominated members invalidly lowered the required threshold.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in law by excluding nominated members from the total member count for the purpose of applying Section 87-A(12). The plain construction of the statute requires that nominated members be included in the total number of members, even though they cannot vote, to ascertain whether a two-thirds majority in favour of the motion has been achieved.
Issues:
Whether nominated members, who have no right to vote, must be counted as part of the total number of members of the municipality for determining whether a motion of no-confidence against the President has been carried under Section 87-A(12) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.
Ratio Decidendi:
The phrase total number of members of the municipality in Section 87-A(12) includes nominated members for the purpose of calculating the two-thirds majority, although their voting rights are excluded under Section 9(D), because their inclusion is essential to ascertain compliance with the statutory threshold.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the writ petition is allowed in the prayed relief, holding that the no-confidence motion was not carried as required by law.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. At the relevant time the Nagar Panchayat, Jalalabad (the municipality) consisted of 21 members, thus: one President and fifteen elected, two ex-officio and three nominated members. A no-confidence motion was moved against the President, the appellant, and thirteen members voted in support. The motion was held to have been carried on 14th October, 1998 and this was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition before the High Court at Allahabad. The writ petition was dismissed on the basis that since the three nominated members could not vote, their number could not be taken into consideration for the purposes of the no-confidence motion and the two third majority thereon had to be calculated by excluding them.
3. Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 deals with a motion of no-confidence against the President, Sub-section (12) thereof reads :
"(12) The motion shall be deemed to have been carried only when it has been passed by a majority of two third of the total number of members of the municipality."
Section 9(D) of the said Act deals with the composition of a municipality and states that it shall consist of a President, elected members, ex-officio members and nominated members. Nominated members are mentioned in sub-clause (d) thereof and the proviso thereto states :
"Provided that the persons referred to in clause (d) shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the Municipality".
4. It will be noticed that nominated members are part of the composition of the municipality and are referred to in the statute as the nominated members thereof. For the purposes of finding whether a motion of no-confidence against the President has been carried, what has to be seen is whether it has been passed by "a majority of two third of the total number of members of the municipality." There can be no doubt, therefore, that, on a plain construction of the statute the number of the nominated members has to be taken into account in determining whether or not a motion of no-confidence against the President has been carried.
5. On behalf of the respondents emphasis is laid upon the proviso quoted above which states that nominated members shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the municipality. It is contended that inasmuch as the nominated members do not have the right to vote in the meetings of the municipality, they should not be counted as part of the total number of the members of the municipality, two thirds of whose vote in favour is requisite for the passage of the motion of no-confidence. We find it difficult to accept this submission, given the plain words of the provisions quoted above. That nominated members may not vote does not imply that they cease to be members of the Municipality or that their number should be ignored in determining whether the President has lost the confidence of two-thirds of the members. So calculated, the vote of confidence against the President had not been carried as required.
6. The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed in terms of the prayer (a) thereof.
7. No order as to costs.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
************