RAMESH MEHTA versus SANWAL CHAND SINGHVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 418 · Decided: 20-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMESH MEHTA 
v. 
SANWAL CHAND SINGHVI AND ORS. 
APRIL 20, 2004 
B 
[V.N. KHARE CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Municipal Laws: 
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959-Sections 3(36), 9, 65 and 72-
C Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No-confidence against Chairman/Vice 
Chairman) Rules, 1974-Rule 3(5), (8) and (9)-No-Confidence Motionagdinst 
Chairman of Board-Counting of majority of 213 of the whole number of 
members of Municipal Board-If ~nclusive of nominated members in Municipal 
Board-Held: Prior to the 74th Constitutional amendment of 1994 and post 
D 1994 the expression "whole number" of members connotes the 'total. number 
of elected members '-However, pursuant to Constitutional amendment of 1994, 
sections 9, 65 and 72 were amended and nominated members were denied 
right to vote-Hence, whole number of members exclude nominated members 
and as such the office of Chairman would stand vacated on passing of no-
conjidence motion by the requisite majority of members of the Board who are 
E entitled to vote-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 243R 
Sanchar Municipal Board consisted of 20 elected members, 2 
nominated members and one MLA (ex-officio), in all 23 members. No 
confidence motion was moved against the Chairperson-appellant In the 
F presence of the SDO the motion was carried out as the whole number of 
members on Board excluding nominated members was 21and2/3rd of21 
being 14, against which 15 members voted. Appellant filed petition 
challenging the decision ofSDO as whole number ot members of Board was 
23 inclusive of2 nominated members and 2/3rd of23 being 15.33 and not 
14. Single Judge of High Court held that nominated members were included 
· G while counting the whole number of members, even though they had no right 
to vote. Aggrieved respondent filed an appeal. Division Bench allowed the 
appeal holding that the expression 'whole numbers of members' in rule 3(9) 
of Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No-confidence against Chairman/ 
Vice Chairman) Rules, 1974 read· with sections 3 (36) and 9 ofRajasthan 
H 
418 
R. MEHTA v. S.C. SINGHVI 
419 
Municipalities Act, 1959excluded nominated members. Hence the present A 
appeals. 
Appellant-Chairperson contended that the right to elect is a statutory 
right; that in each case of election and removal, the court has to examine the 
Act in question; that the expression "whole number of members" in the Act 
cannot be construed as 'whole number of elected members" since after the B 
74th Constitutional Amendment, the legislature did not amend the definition 
of 'member' under section 3(15) and "whole number" under section 3(36) 
which includes nominated members and the composition of Municipal Board 
under section 9(a)(i) and (ii) included nominated members, who formed the 
part of the whole number of the members; that on reading rule 3(8) and rule C 
3(9) of 1974 Rules along with section 3(36) of the Act, it is clear that the no-
confidence motion has to be carried by requisite majority of 2/3rd of the whole 
number of members including nominated members; and that the respondent 
is claiming casus omissus that the words 'whole number of members' must 
be construed as 'whole number of elected members'. 
D 
Respondent No. 1 contended that the expression 'whole number of 
members" appearing in sub-rules (5), (8) and (9) of Rule 3of1974 Rules has 
to be read with section 3(36) of the Act which is a definition section and states 
that unless the context otherwise requires the expression "whole number of 
members" when used with reference to the members ofa board would mean 
the total number of members holding office at the time; that prior to 1994 E 
amendment, the co-opted members were at par with the elected members of 
the board, however after 1994 Amendment the nominated members had no 
right to vote and as such even prior to 1994 Amendment to the Act, the 
expression "whole number of members" appearing in Rule 3(8) and (9) mMnt 
the "total number of elected members"; that pursuant to the 74th F 
Constitutional Amendment, seetions 9, 65 and 72 of the Act were amended by 
which nominated members were denied the rjght to vote but the 1974 rules 
remained unchanged and as such the 1974 Rules have to be construed in 
accordance with amended provisions of sections 9, 65 and 72 which debar the 
nominated members from voting in the meetings of the Municipal Boards; 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
Per Kapadia, J. (for himself and V.N. Khare, CJ)

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