Supreme Court of India

RAEES AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: 1999 INSC 552
Decided: 10 December 1999
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: S P BHARUCHAS S M QUADRI

Holding

Nominated members, despite being non‑voting, are part of the total membership and must be included in the two‑thirds majority calculation for a no‑confidence motion.

Summary

The Nagar Panchayat Jalalabad comprised 21 members, including three nominated members who were barred from voting. A motion of no‑confidence against the President was moved and supported by 13 members. The High Court held that, because the nominated members could not vote, they should be excluded from the total membership for calculating the two‑thirds majority required under Section 87‑A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, and consequently upheld the motion. The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined Sections 9(D) and 87‑A and held that nominated members, although non‑voting, remain members of the municipality and must be counted in the total number for the two‑thirds test. Accordingly, the motion was not passed and the High Court’s order was set aside. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether nominated members, who are disallowed to vote under the proviso to Section 9(D) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, must be counted in the total number of members for the purpose of determining the two‑thirds majority required under Section 87‑A for a motion of no‑confidence against the President.

Subjects

no‑confidence motionmunicipal lawnominated membersvoting rightsmajority calculationstatutory interpretationU.P. Municipalities Act

Judgment

A R~EESAHMAD
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

DECEMBER 10, 1999
"

B . [S.P. BHARUCHA AND_ SYED SHAH MOHAMMED
" . . . .JJ.)
QUADRI,

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.
· -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
H
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.
F
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
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.

The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order under appeal is set
aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed in terms of the prayer ,...,
'
(a) thereof.
B
.
No order as to costs .

RP. Appeal allowed.

.,,,"
I

'•·
.
\

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "no‑confidence motion"Sign in to search