JIVENDRA NATH KAUL ETC. versus THE COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR ETC.

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 24-07-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JIVENDRA NATH KAUL ETC. 
v. 
THE COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR ETC. 
JULY 24, 1992 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
U.P. Kehhetra Samiti and Zilla Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961: 
Section 28(11)--President-No confidence motion-When carried 
C out-'For the time being'-lnterpretation of-Means at the moment or existing 
position-Actual membership in existence on date of no confidence motion. 
The appellant was elected president of the Zilla Parishad on January 
25, 1989. Two others were nominated as members of the Zilla Parishad. 
On the date of its constitution the Zilla Parishad had a total of 62 
D members. 
E 
F 
On August 17, 1990, 56 members of the Zilla Parishad moved a no 
confidence motion against the president under Section 28 of the U.P. 
Kehhetra Samiti and Zilla Parishad Adhinfyam, 1961. The meeting to 
consider the said motion was held on September 14, 1990. 34 members were 
present at the meeting. 33 members including the two nominated members 
voted in favour of the motion while one member voted against, and as such 
the motion of no confidence was carried out against the president. 
The appellant filed two writ petitions in the High Court and chal-
lenged and proceedings of the meeting dated September 14, 1990 and also 
his removal from the office of the president. He further challenged the 
-
nomination of the two nominated members on the ground that on the date 
~. 
of their nomination both of them were in government serivce and as such 
were disqualified to be members of the Zilla Parishad, being holders of an 
G office of profit. 
The High Court by its judgment partly allowed the Writ Petiti~ns 
and set aside the nominations of the two members holding the same to be 
illegal. It further held, that as they were not lawful members of the 
Parishad, their names are to be ignored, that the total strength of the 
H members of the Parishad for the time being comes to 60, and if these two 
642 
, 
---( 
--
-( 
JNENDRA KAUL v. COLLECTOR 
643 
names are also excluded from the number of members who voted for the A 
~ 
action of no confidence, the number of such members who voted for the 
motion of confidence, comes to 31. Thus, 31 members voted for the action 
of no confidence out of the total strength of 60 members, and therefore the 
irresistible conclusion was that the motion of no confidence was carried 
out by more than half of the total number of members of the Zilla Parishad 
for the time being. 
B 
The appellant flied appeals to this Court by Special Leave. It was 
contended on behalf of the appellant relying on an earlier judgment of the 
High Court in Bhaiya Lal v. P.N. Tiwari 1970 Allahabad Law Journal 36, 
that the words "for the time being" in Section 28(11) of the Adhiniyam C 
means the total number of members in existence at the time of the 
constitution of the Zilla Parishad and not on the date when the motion of 
no confidence was considered. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD : 1. "For the time being" in section 28(1::.) of the Adhiniyam 
means at the moment or existing position. These words indic~te the actual 
membership in existence on the date of the motion of no confidence. [648A] 
2. The High Court-In Bhaiya Lal's case has not given natural mean-
ing to the expressions contained in sub-sections 12 and 13 of section 87-A 
of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The only meaning which can be given 
to the expression "half of the total members of the Board" is the members 
as existing on the date of its constitution. The High Court's interpretation 
D 
E 
is contrary to the plain language of the sub-section. Similarly, the High 
Court fell into grave error by not appreciating the plain meaning of the F 
words "for the time being" in sub-section 13 of section 87-A of the Act. On 
the basis of strained reasoning it has given an interpretation which does 
not Dow from the simple language of sub-sections 12 and 13 of section 87-A 
of the Act. The High Court Judgment does not therefore lay down the 
correct law. [647F-648B] 
G 
Bhaiya Lal v. P.N. Tiwari, 1970 All. LJ. 36, over-ruled. 
In the instant case, where out of total number of 62 members, 
nomination of two having been held illegal, actual membership on the date 
of the motion was 60, and out of total 34 members present in the meeting, H 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992) 3 S.C.R. 
A 33 voted for the motion and only 1 voted against, it has to be held that the 
motion was carried out against the President. (646 E-

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.