LexGANESH SUKHDEO GURULE versus TAHSILDAR SINNAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R. GANESH SUKHDEO GURULE v. TAHSILDAR SINNAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 11916 of 2018) DECEMBER 10, 2018 [A. K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.] Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 – s.35(3) – Majority for holding no- confidence motion – Computation of – Respondents moved a no-confidence motion against the appellant – Special meeting of Gram Panchayat for consideration of no- confidence motion was held and out of 9 members of the Gram Panchayat only 8 members were present in the meeting – 6 members voted in favour of the motion and 2 members opposed to it – 1 member who voted in favour of no-confidence motion was not qualified to vote, so only 5 valid votes were voted in favour of no- confidence motion – No confidence motion was passed – A dispute application under 35(3-B) of the Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Rules, 1958 challenging the no-confidence motion passed was filed – Addl. Collector held that no-confidence motion was validly passed – Writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed – On appeal, held: s.35(3) of the Act refers to majority as “a majority of not less than two-third of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote” – In instant case, total number of members being 9 and 1 member being disqualified to sit and vote, the computation of majority has to be on the basis of number 8, two-third of the number 8 will be 5.33 – Furthermore, the words ‘not less than’ used in s.35(3) of the Act has to be given meaning and purpose – When majority comes to 5.33 votes “not less than 5.33” have to be given meaning, hence, 5.33 can never be rounded off to 5, fraction has to be treated as one because votes cannot be treated as fraction – Hence, 5.33 votes to be read as 6 votes for passing of the motion as mandated by s.35(3) – Thus, no-confidence motion was not validly passed and the order of the Addl. Collector as well as the High Court were erroneous – Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Rules, 1958 – r.35(3-B). [2018] 14 S.C.R. 914 914 A B C D E F G H 915 Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In the present case, Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 refers to majority as “a majority of not less than two-third of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchayat”. The above expression clearly indicates the majority of not less than two-third of the “total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote”. The key words in the expression are members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at a meeting in the Panchayat. The computation of majority thus refers to “entitlement to sit and vote at any meeting”. Thus, the number of members who are entitled to sit and vote in a meeting have to be taken into consideration for computing the majority. Total number of members being nine and one member being disqualified to sit and vote, the computation of majority has to be on the basis of number eight, two-third of the number eight will be 5.33. [Para 9][918-G-H; 919-A] 2. In so far as vote of one disqualified member, the same can neither be computed for the no-confidence motion nor is relevant for computing two-third majority as per the statutory scheme. The words ‘not less than’ used in Section 35(3) of the Act has to be given meaning and purpose. When majority comes to 5.33 votes “not less than 5.33 votes” have to be given meaning, hence, 5.33 can never be rounded off to 5, fraction has to be treated as one because votes cannot be treated as fraction. Hence, 5.33 votes to be read as 6 votes for passing of the motion as mandated by Section 35(3). [Para 17][923-E-F] 3. Thus, no-confidence motion was not validly passed and the order of the Addl. Collector as well as of the High Court are erroneous. It is held that motion of no-confidence was not passed against the appellant since it was not passed by two-third of the total number of the members who were for the time being entitled to sit and vote. [Para 18][923-F-G] State of U.P. and another v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 10 : [2005] 1 SCR 21 – referred to. Jayram v. Secretary, U.D.D. Mumbai, 2010 (3) MH. LJ 465 ; Anant v. Chief Election Commissioner 2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431 - referred to. GANESH SUKHDEO GURULE v. TAHSILDAR SINNAR & ORS. A B C D E F G H 916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.