LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Thursday, December 13, 2018

Election Laws - Politics - Whether the noconfidence motion is validly passed when only 5 voted when it requires 5.33 votes = 6 votes towards 2/3rd majorty as per sec.35[3] of the Grama Panchayat Act ? respondents moved a no­confidence motion against the appellant-Tahsildar issued notice - convening special meeting of Gram Panchayat for consideration of no­confidence motion - out of nine members of the Gram Panchayat only eight members were present in the meeting. Six members voted in favour of the motion and two members were opposed to it.- One of the members who voted in favour of no­confidence motion was not qualified to vote, who had not filed caste certificate after election as per second proviso to Section 9A - so was disqualified automatically to continue to be a member or to vote in any meeting.- A Dispute Application under 35(3­B) of the Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Rules, 1958 challenging the no­confidence motion passed was filed. The Addl. Collector, passed an order - approving and holding that no­confidence motion was validly passed.- a writ petition was filed by the appellant which has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. - Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court this appeal has been filed. - Apex court held that The main issue is that what shall be two­third majority for holding the no­confidence motion to be passed in the Panchayat - Admittedly there are nine members [ including appeallant ] in the Village Panchayat. - Out of nine members , eight members were present. - Out of eight members present, one member was disqualified to sit and vote by virtue of she having not submitted her caste certificate after the election. - She was one out of six members who have voted in favour of no­confidence motion. - There are five valid votes in favour of no­confidence motion as two against it. -Section 35(3) refers to majority as “a majority of not not less than twothird of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchayat - 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, two­third of the number eight will be 5.33. - 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).-We are, thus, of the view that no­confidence motion was not validly passed and the order of the Addl. Collector as well as of the High Court are erroneous.


Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan 

1
REPORTABLE
  IN     THE     SUPREME     COURT   OF INDIA
    CIVIL     APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.11916   Of 2018
GANESH SUKHDEO GURULE       ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
TAHSILDAR SINNAR & ORS.    ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
    ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.
This   appeal   has   been   filed   against   the   judgment
dated 22.11.2018 of the High Court of Bombay dismissing
the writ petition filed by the appellant.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as
well   as   the   counsel   for   the   respondent   No.4   who   has
appeared on caveat. The interest of respondent No.4 and
other   private   respondents   being   common   we   have   not
issued notice to other respondents.
2
3. The brief facts of the case necessary for deciding
the appeal are:
On   07.09.2018,   respondents   moved   a   no­confidence
motion   against   the   appellant.   Tahsildar   issued   notice
dated   07.09.2018   convening   special   meeting   of   Gram
Panchayat for consideration of no­confidence motion on
14.09.2018.   On   14.09.2018   out   of   nine   members   of   the
Gram Panchayat   only eight members were present in the
meeting. Six members voted in favour of the motion and
two members were opposed to it. One of the members who
voted   in   favour   of   no­confidence   motion   was   not
qualified to vote, namely,  Smt. Sushila Prakash Darade
who had not filed her caste certificate after election,
hence, she was disqualified to continue to be a member
or to vote in any meeting. A Dispute Application under
35(3­B) of  the Maharashtra  Gram Panchayat Rules,  1958
challenging the no­confidence motion passed was filed.
The   Addl.   Collector,   Nasik   passed   an   order   dated
16.10.2018   approving   the   special   meeting   dated
14.09.2018   holding   that   no­confidence   motion   was
3
validly passed. Against the order passed by the Addl.
Collector, a writ petition was filed by the appellant
which   has   been   dismissed   by   the   High   Court   by   the
impugned   judgment.     Aggrieved   by   the   judgment   of   the
High Court this appeal has been filed.
4. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that
total   members   of   Gram   Panchayat   being   nine   and   one
member   being   disqualified   to   vote   the   two­third
majority   has   to   be   computed   on   the   basis   of   eight
members which comes to 5.33 and there being only five
valid votes in favour of   no­confidence motion, motion
cannot   be   held   to   be   passed.   One   of   the   members   who
voted   in   favour   of   no­confidence   motion   i.e.   Smt.
Sushila   Prakash   Darade   being   disqualified   to   sit   and
vote   cannot   be   counted   in   favour   of   no­confidence
motion,   two­third   majority   being   5.33,   at   least   six
votes   were   required   for   passing   the   no­confidence
motion.   It   is   submitted   that   caste   certificate   being
not submitted by Smt. Sushila Prakash Darade within six
months   as   required   by   law   she   automatically   became
disqualified   to   sit   or   vote   in   the   meeting   of   Gram
4
Panchayat.
5. The   submissions   made   by   the   counsel   of   the
appellant   were   refuted   by   the   counsel   for   the
respondent. It is submitted that there being only eight
members   present   and   one   being   disqualified,   two­third
majority   shall   be   computed   from   seven   and   five   votes
caste in favour of the no­confidence motion, the motion
shall be treated to be validly passed. It is contended
that   provision   of   Section   35(3)   of   the   Maharashtra
Village   Panchayats   Act,   1959   has   to   be   read   to   mean
that   majority   of   not   less   than   two­third   of   total
number of members present and voting, thus, there being
only 8 members present, majority is to be computed from
7   excluding   one   disqualified   member.   He   submits   that
motion of no­confidence was validly passed against the
appellant and rightly upheld by the High Court.
6.Learned   counsel   for   the   parties   relied   on   few
judgments which shall be referred to while considering
the submissions.
5
7. Section   35   of   the   Maharashtra   Village   Panchayats
Act deals with motion of  no­confidence. Section 35(1)
and   Section   35(3)   which   are   relevant   for   the   present
case are as follows:
“35.   Motion   of   no   confidence. ­ (1) A
motion of no confidence may be moved by not
less than [one 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 against   the Sarpanchor   the UpaSarpanch after  giving  such  notice  thereof  to
the   Tahsildar   as   may   be   prescribed. [Such
notice once given shall not be withdrawn.
Xxx xxx xxx
(3) If the motion is carried by a majority of
not less than two­third of the total number of
the   members who   are   for   the   time   being
entitled   to   sit   and   vote   at   any   meeting   of
the panchayat or the Upa­Sarpanch, as the case
may  be, [shall  forthwith  stop  exercising  all
the powers and perform all the functions and
duties   of   the   office   and   thereupon   such
powers,   functions   and   duties   shall   vest   in
the Upa­Sarpanch in case the motion is carried
out   against   the Sarpanch;   and   in   case   the
motion   is   carried   out   against   both
the Sarpanch and Upa­Sarpanch,   in   such
officer,   not   below   the   rank   of   Extension
Officer,   as   may   be   authorised   by   the   Block
Development Officer, till the dispute, if any,
referred   to   under   sub­section   (3B)   is
decided:”
6
8. The   main   issue   which   arises   for   consideration   is
that what shall be two­third majority for holding the
no­confidence motion to be passed in the Panchayat in
the   facts   of   the   present   case.   Admittedly   there   are
nine   members   in   the   Village   Panchayat.   Out   of   nine
members   in   the   meeting   held   on   14.09.2018,   eight
members were present. Out of eight members present, one
member   was   disqualified   to   sit   and   vote   by   virtue  of
she   having   not   submitted   her   caste   certificate   after
the election. She was one out of six members who have
voted   in   favour   of     no­confidence   motion.   There   are
five valid votes in favour of  no­confidence motion as
two   against   it.   The   statute   provides   for   special
majority   for   passing   a   motion.   The  Shackleton  on   the
“Law and Practice of Meetings” in paragraph 7.32 while
dealing with special majority states:
"In   cases   where   special   majorities   are
prescribed,   the   provisions   of   the   relevant
statute   or   rules   or   rules   must   be   carefully
observed.   Thus,   where   under   an   old   Act   a
motion   was   to   be   “determined   by   a   majority
consisting of two­thirds of the votes of the
ratepayers present” at a meeting, and 37 were
present, the votes of 20 ratepayers in favour
of the motion (the remainder abstaining) were
7
deemed to be insufficient to comply with the
statute.”
9. In the present case statute, Section 35(3) refers
to majority as “a majority of not not less than twothird 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   two­third 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,     two­third   of   the   number   eight   will  be
5.33.   The   Submission   of   the   respondent   is   that   the
8
two­third   majority   has   to   be   computed   out   of   the
members   present   and   voting   i.e.   seven   excluding   one
member   who   was   unqualified   to   vote   and   five   is   more
than  two­third of seven, the majority has been rightly
passed. The interpretation put  by the learned counsel
for   the   respondent   cannot  be   accepted  in   view  of   the
clear   language   of   statute.   The   crucial   words   in   the
statute   are   members   “who   are   for   the   time   being
entitled to sit and vote”. This, expression cannot be
treated   to   be   expression  members   present   and   voting.
The submission  of the respondent  that for computation
of majority number of seven members should be treated,
cannot be accepted.
10. The   next   submission   pressed   by   the   respondent   is
that   for   applying   the   principle   of   rounding   off   5.33
votes have to be rounded as to five. Thus, five votes
are   sufficient   to   accept   majority   for   the   purpose   of
passing no­confidence motion. Whether 5.33 votes can be
rounded up into 5 votes or requirement is at lest six
votes is the real issue. When there are  clear words in
the   statute   i.e.   “not   less   two­third   of   the   total
9
number of members” applying the principle of  rounding
off, 5.33 vote cannot be treated as 5. Vote of a person
cannot be expressed in fraction. When computation of a
majority   comes   with   fraction   of   a   vote   that   fraction
has to be treated as one vote, because votes cannot be
expressed in fraction. The  principle  that figure  less
than .5 is to be ignored and figure more than .5 shall
be treated as one, is  not  applicable in the statutory
scheme   as   delineated   by   Section   35.   Provision   of
Section 35(1) which provides for requirement for moving
motion of no­confidence by not less than one­third of
the total number of the members who are for the time
being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the
Panchayat,   is   the   same   expression   as   used   in   subsection   (3).   Obviously,   requirement   of   not   less   than
one­third number for moving motion has to be computed
from   total   number  of   the   members   who   are   entitled  to
sit   and   vote.   Thus,   the   same   expression   having   been
used   in   sub­section   (3)   of   Section   35   both   the
expressions   have   to   be   given   the   same   meaning.   Thus,
one­third of total number of members who are entitled
10
to sit and vote have to be determined on the strength
of members entitled to vote at a particular time. The
same   meaning   has   also   to   be   applied   while   computing
two­third majority.
11. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   placed
reliance on two judgments, one, of this Court in State
of U.P. and another vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others,
(2005)   2   SCC   10.   In   the   above   case,   this   Court   was
considering applicability of percentage of reservation
in the context of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for
Scheduled   Casts,   Scheduled   Tribes   and   Other   Backward
Classes)  Act, 1994. The percentage prescribed for the
reservation   category   in   the   State   of   U.P.   noticed   in
paragraph   2   of   the   judgment.   Respondent   belonging   to
general category was at the top of the waiting list. He
filed  a   writ   petition  directing   the   State  to   issue   a
letter of appointment to the respondent. The High Court
held   that   50   %   of   general   category   which   was   46.50
ought to have been treated as 47. The High Court had
allowed   the   writ   petition   and   held   the   respondent
11
entitled   for   appointment   as   47th   general   category
candidate. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed
by this Court. Paragraph 2,6 and 7 of the judgment are
as follows:
“2.   The   percentages   of   reservation,   as
applicable   and   as   was   actually   applied,   are
set out in the following table:
Category Percentage
(prescribed)
Percentage
worked out
to
Number
of posts
reserved
General 50% 46.50 46
Scheduled
Castes
21% 19.53 20
Other
Backward
Classes
27% 25.11 26
Scheduled
Tribes
2% 1.86 1
6.   The   High   Court   has   found   mainly   two
faults with the process adopted by the State
Government. First, the figure of 46.50 should
have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46; and
secondly, in the category of freedom fighters
and   ex­servicemen,   total   3   posts   have   been
earmarked   as   horizontally   reserved   by
inserting such reservation into general quota
of 46 posts which had the effect of pushing
out   of   selection   zone   three   candidates   from
merit list of general category.
7. We do not find fault with any of the two
reasonings adopted by the High Court. The rule
of   rounding   off   based   on   logic   and   common
sense   is:   if   part   is   one­half   or   more,   its
12
value shall be increased to one and if part is
less   than   half   then   its   value   shall   be
ignored. 46.50 should have been rounded off to
47   and   not   to   46   as   has   been   done.   If   47
candidates   would   have   been   considered   for
selection in general category, the respondent
was   sure   to   find   a   place   in   the   list   of
selected   meritorious   candidates   and   hence
entitled to appointment. ”
12. The judgment of this Court in the above case was on
rounding off the vacancies. The reserved post being 50%
of the total number of posts reservation in no manner
can exceed 50%. In the facts of aforesaid case, there
were   total   93   posts,   47   was     treated   more   than   50%.
Hence,   the   post   for   general   category   which   was   46.50
was   rounded   off   to   47   by   the   High   Court   which   was
approved   by   this   Court.   The   said   case   related   to
computation of vacancies for particular category as per
1994   Act   which   principle   cannot   be   applied   in
computation   of   a   special   majority   as   required   by   the
statute in question.
13. Another judgment is a Full Bench judgment in Jayram
vs.   Secretary,   U.D.D.   Mumbai,   2010   (3)   MH.   LJ   465,
13
which is relied by learned counsel for the respondent,
by   referring   to   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in  Pawan
Kumar   Tiwari   (supra)  the   Full   Bench   of   Bombay   High
Court   held   that   there   is   no   justification   that
fraction below 0.5 be ignored in allotting the seats to
registered or recognised parties on the basis of groups
as per statutory scheme delineated by Bombay Provincial
Municipal   Corporations   Act,   1949.   Referring   to   the
judgment of this Court in Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra) in
paragraph 31, the Full Bench of Bombay High Court has
rightly   held   that   rounding   off   was   not   the   ratio   or
principle on which Pawan Kumar Tiwari case was decided.
Paragraph 31 of the judgment is quoted below:
"31. Mr.   Anturkar,   learned   Counsel
vehementaly   contended   that   rule   of   rounding
off is now well recognised and is based upon
the logic and common sense. For this he relied
upon   State   of   U.P.   vs.   Pawan   Kumar   Tiwari,
(2005)   2   SCC   10.   In   that   case,   93   posts   of
Civil Judges, J.D. were advertised and 50% of
the   posts   were   reserved   for   different
categories   and   50%   were   for   the   general   or
open   category.   In   view   of   this   percentage
46.50   seats   would   be   available   for   reserved
category and 46.50 for general category. The
State   Government   rounded   off   the   number   of
posts available for general category at 46 and
for   the   reserved   category   at   47.   The   High
14
Court   found   fault   with   the   process   and   held
that the number of posts available for general
category could not be rounded off at 46, but
should   have   been   rounded   off   at   47.   The
Supreme   Court   dismissed   the   appeal   of   the
State   Government   and   held   that   if   the   seats
for   reserved   category   are   fixed   at   47,   it
would cross the limit of 50% and therefore it
could   not   be   upheld   and   as   such   number   of
posts available for reserved category could be
fixed   at   46   and   that   for   general   category
should have been fixed at 47. Their Lordships
observed as follows in para 9:­
“9.   There   is   yet   another   reason   why   the
judgment   of   the   High   Court   has   to   be
maintained.   The   total   number   of   vacancies
was 93. Consequent upon the allocation of
reservation   and   calculation   done   by   the
appellants,   the   number   of   reserved   seats
would be 47, leaving only 46 available for
general   category   candidates.   Meaning
thereby,   the   reservation   would   exceed   50%
which would be unconstitutional. The total
number   of   reserved   seats   could   not   have
been more than 46 out of 93. ”
In   fact,   in   this   case,   both   the   groups
had   46.5   and   if   the   same   formula   would   be
applied, then in each case .50 could have been
rounded off to 1 and each of the group would
be   entitled   to   47   seats.   In   that   case,   the
total number would become 94, while the total
vacancies   available   were   only   93.   Thus,
rounding off is not the ratio or principle on
which   that   case   was   decided.   It   was   decided
mainly on the question as to whether reserved
categories may get seats more than 50% quota.
Therefore   the   authority   in   Pawan   Kumar
Tiwari's case could not be used in support of
the view taken in Vasant Gite.”
15
14. Further, in paragraph 34 Full Bench of Bombay High
Court   itself   held   that   there   is   no   justification   to
ignore fraction below 0.5 in the context of allocation
of registered or recognised parties or groups who are
entitled to number of seats. The above judgment of the
Bombay   High   Court   in   no   manner   supports   the   case   of
respondent rather supports the appellant's contention.
15. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   in   so   far   as
disqualification   of   one   of   the   members   who   had   not
filed her caste certificate relied on  Anant vs. Chief
Election Commissioner, 2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431, before the
Full Bench the issue was raised as to whether on nonsubmission   of   caste   certificate   within   six   months
period   disqualification   is   automatic.   Answering   the
reference   Full   Bench   held   that   the   provision   for
requiring   submission   of   caste   certificate   within   a
period   of   six   months   for   election   is   mandatory   and
disqualification   would   be   automatic.   In   paragraph   100
of the judgment the Full Bench held the following :
16
“100.   In   the   result,   we   hold   that   the
time limit of six months prescribed in the two
provisos to Section 9A of the said Act, within
which an elected person is required to produce
the   Validity   Certificate   from   the   Scrutiny
Committee is mandatory. 
Further,   in   terms   of   second   proviso   to
Section   9A   if   a   person   fails   to   produce
Validity   Certificate   within   a   period   of   six
months from the date on which he is elected,
his   election   shall   be   deemed   to   have   been
terminated   retrospectively   and   he   shall   be
disqualified for being a Councillor.
Such   retrospective   termination   of   his
election   and   disqualification   for   being   a
Councillor  would  be  automatic and validation
of his caste claim after the stipulated period
would   not   result   in   restoration   of   his
election.
The   questions   raised,   stand   answered
accordingly. ”
16. It is further relevant to note that this Court in
Special   Leave   Petition   (C)Nos.   29874­29875   of   2016
(Shankar   s/o   Raghunath   Devre   (Patil)   vs.   State   of
Maharashtra & Ors.) has approved the view taken by the
Full   Bench   vide   its   judgment   dated   23.08.2018   by
holding   that   the   requirement   of   submitting   caste
certificate is mandatory.
17
17. Thus, in so far as vote of one member, Smt. Sushila
Prakash   Darade,   the   same   can   neither   be   computed   for
the no­confidence motion nor is relevant for computing
two­third   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).
18. We are, thus, of the view that no­confidence 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 no­confidence was not passed
against the appellant since it was not passed by less
than two­third of the total number of the members who
were for the time being entitled to sit and vote. The
18
proceedings   dated   14.09.2018,   order   of   the   Addl.
Collector   approving   the   proceedings   as   well   as   the
judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition
are set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
.........................J.
( A.K. SIKRI )
..........................J.
    ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
..........................J.
NEW DELHI, ( S. ABDUL NAZEER )
December 10, 2018.