RAEES AHMAD versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 226 · Decided: 10-12-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA, S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
R~EESAHMAD 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
" 
DECEMBER 10, 1999 
B . [S.P. BHARUCHA AND_ SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.) 
" 
. 
. 
. 
. 
U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916: 
Ss.9(D), 87-A-Nagar Panchayat....:.President-Motion of no 
C confidence:-To be p~sed by "a majority of two third of total number "of 
-members "-Nominated Members-Held, mwe to be taken into account in 
determining whether or not a motion of no-confidence against the President 
has been carried-Thai nominated members may not vote does not imply that 
they cease to be members of the Municipality or that their number should be 
D ignored in determining whether the President has lost the confidence of the 
two-third of the "members-So calculated, the vote of no-confidence against 
the President had not been carried as required 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7182 of 1999. 
E . 
From the Judgment and Order dated}.12.98 of the Allahabad High Court 
m C.M. W.P. No. 35246 of 1998. 
B.L. Yada~ and Shiikeel Ahmed for the Appellant . 
. : 
. . 
Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, Mir Akhtar Hussain, Ms. Tamina Punvai, Joseph 
F Pookkatt and· Prashant Kumar for the Respondents. 
· , 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
-". 
. . 
Le;ve granted. 
G 
-At the relevant time the Nagar Panchayat, Jalalabad (the municipality) 
consisted of 21 members, thus: one Pre_sident 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. 
H 
· -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 
226 
• 
RAEES AHMAD v. ST A TE 
227 
Allahabad. The writ petition was dismissed on the basis that since the three A 
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 there on had to be calculated excluding them. 
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 : 
B 
"( 12) The motion shall be deemed to have been c~ied 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 C 
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 D 
right to VQte in the meetings of the Municipality". 
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 E 
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 had to be 
taken into account in determining whether or not a motion of no-confidence 
against the President has been carried. 
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 
F 
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 G 
members of the municipality, two third 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-third of the H 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A members. So calculated, the vote of confidence against the President had not 
been carried as required. 
B 
The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order under appeal is set 
aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.