http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6133 of 2002

PETITIONER: Ramesh Mehta

RESPONDENT: Sanwal Chand Singhvi & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/04/2004

BENCH: CJI V.N. KHARE & S.H. KAPADIA.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T    WITH

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6134-6135, 6136 & 8564 OF  2002 AND CIVIL APPEAL No.2393 OF 2003.

KAPADIA, J.  

       The question raised in these civil appeals is \026 whether in  counting "the whole number of members of the municipal  board" in terms of rule 3(9) of the Rajasthan Municipalities  (Motion of No-Confidence against Chairman/Vice-Chairman)  Rules 1974, nominated members have to be taken into  consideration?          For sake of convenience, we refer to the facts in Civil  Appeal No.6133 of 2002.          On 19.8.2000, elections were held for the Municipal  Board, Sanchar, district Jalore.  The appellant Ramesh Mehta  was elected as Chairperson of the Municipal Board.  On  24.10.2000, the State Government nominated two members on  the Board.  On 6.10.2001, the total number of members of the  municipal board consisted of 20 elected members, 2 nominated  members and one MLA (Ex-officio).  Thus, the total number of  members on 6.10.2001 were 23.  On that day, the no confidence  motion was moved against the Chairperson, in which 15  members voted for the motion.   The motion was conducted by  the SDO, Sanchar as a nominee of the Collector, Jalore.   According to the SDO, the no confidence motion stood carried  out as the whole number of members on the board, excluding  the nominated members, was 21 and 2/3rd of 21 was 14, against  which 15 members voted for the motion. According to the  appellant, the decision of SDO was erroneous as the whole  number of members of the board was 23 and not 21 as  determined by the SDO and 2/3rd of 23 being 15.33, the motion  stood defeated.  The decision of the SDO was challenged by the  appellant herein in the High Court by filing petition no.4178 of  2001.  By judgment and order dated 21.5.2002, the learned  Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench held  that in counting the whole number of members, nominated  members have also to be taken into account even though they  had no right to vote.  The learned Single Judge relied upon the  judgment of this Court in the case Raees Ahmad v. State of  U.P. reported in [(2000) 1 SCC 432].  Aggrieved by the  decision, the respondent herein carried the matter in appeal to  the Division Bench of the High Court, which took the view that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

the expression "whole number of members" used in rule 3(9) of  Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No-Confidence against  Chairman/Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to  as "the 1974 Rules") excluded nominated members.  It was  observed by the Division Bench that the said rule 3(9) of the  1974 Rules is required to be read with section 3(36) and section  9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter  referred to as "the Act") and if so read, the expression "whole  number of members" would exclude nominated members.   Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the decision of the  SDO was confirmed.  Hence, the original petitioner, the ousted  Chairman of the Municipal Board has come by way of civil  appeal.  The question herein is common in all civil appeals  herein.   

Shri Manish Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the  appellant submitted that the right to elect is neither a  fundamental right nor a common law right.  It is a statutory  right.  He submitted that the electoral college which elects a  person may be different from the electoral college which  removes such person from the post.  In this connection, he  placed reliance for purposes of illustration on Articles 54 and  61 of the Constitution.  He submitted that in each case of  election and removal, the Court has to examine the Act in  question. Elaborating his argument, it was urged that the entire  thrust of the argument of the respondent was that the words  "whole number of members" must be construed as "whole  number of elected members" and, therefore, the respondent is  claiming casus omissus.  He submitted that this Court has  repeatedly held that a matter which should have been but has  not been provided for in a statute cannot be supplied by the  Courts.  In this connection, he relied upon the judgment of the  Privy Council in the case of Hansraj Gupta v. Dehra Dun  Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. reported in [AIR 1933  PC 63] and Smt. Hira Devi & Ors. v. District Board,  Shahjahanpur reported in [1952 SCR 1122].  He next  contended that despite the 74th Constitutional Amendment, the  legislature did not amend the definition of "member" under  section 3(15) and the definition of the words "whole number"  under section 3(36) which includes nominated members.  Thus,  the composition of municipal boards under section 9(a)(i) and  (ii) included nominated members, who formed the part of the  whole number of the members of the board and, therefore, the  expression "whole number of members" in the Act cannot be  construed as "whole number of elected members".  He  submitted that under Article 243R(2)(b), the legislature may by  law provide for a manner of election of the Chairman.  He  submitted that the rules of 1974 provided for removal of  chairman, which was different from election of the chairman.   In this connection, he submitted that even though a chairperson  may be elected from the electoral college of elected members,  the removal could be due to 2/3rd of the members including  nominated members.  In the circumstances, he submitted that if  one reads rule 3(8) and rule 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.  He,  therefore, submitted that the High Court erred in holding that  the words "whole number of members" must be construed as  "whole number of elected members".

Shri S.K Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of  respondent No.1, Shri Sanwal Chand Singhvi, submitted that  Rule 3(9) of 1974 Rules contains the expression "whole number  of members".  He urged that one has to read the said expression

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

in the context of section 3(36) of the Act which is a preliminary  definition section and which states that unless the context  otherwise requires the expression "whole number of members"  when used with reference to the members of a board shall mean  the total number of members holding office at the time.  It was  further contended that under section 9(5) of the Act, prior to  1994 amendment, the co-opted members had to be treated for  all purposes as elected members of the board which position  changed after 1994 Amendment under which nominated  members had no right to vote.  It was, therefore, urged that even  prior to 1994 Amendment to the Act the expression "whole  number of members" appearing in Rule 3(8) and (9) meant the   "total number of elected members".  Learned counsel for  respondent No.1 further pointed out that in 1994, sections 9, 65  and 72 of the Act were amended in pursuance of  the new  chapter XIV-B being inserted in the Constitution by  Constitution (Seventy fourth) Amendment Act, 1994.  It was  pointed out that under the proviso to sub-Article (2)(a)(i) of  Article 243R, persons nominated were precluded for voting.  In  pursuance of the said amendment in the Constitution, Sections  9, 65 and 72 of the Act were amended by which nominated  members were denied the right to vote. It was pointed out that  although the Act stood amended, the 1974 Rules remained  unchanged and, therefore, 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.  In support of the above  submissions, reliance was also placed on section 3(36) of the  Act, which, as stated above, is the definition section which  begins with the words "unless the context otherwise requires".    For the reasons herein, it was submitted on behalf of the  respondents that the "whole number of members" appearing  in  sub-Rules (5), (8) and (9) of Rule 3 of 1974 Rules must be  construed as "total  number of elected members".   

Before adverting to the arguments advanced on both  sides, we reproduce hereinbelow the relevant provisions of the  said Act (pre and post 1994):\027    

A comparative chart showing the provisions  of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959  before and after the Amendment in 1994:\027

Provisions Prior to Amendment

Provisions After Amendment "9. Composition of boards.\027(1)  Subject to the provisions contained  in the succeeding  sub-sections,  every board shall consist of such  number of seats as may be fixed by  the State Government from time to  time by notification in the Official  Gazette.    (2)-(3) xxx    \005  xxx  \005   xxx  

4.     All the seats fixed for a board,  general as well as reserved, shall be  filled up by election held in the  manner provided for by and in the  order made under Section 29.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

5.   To every board there shall be  appointed by co-option in the  manner provided for by order  published in the official Gazette\027

(i)     Two persons belonging to the  female sex if no such person  has been returned to the board  by election referred in sub- sec.(4), or

(ii)    One person belonging to the  female sex if only one such  person has been returned to the  board by such election, and  such co-opted person or  persons being treated for all  purposes of this Act as  elected member or members  of the board, and the number  of seats fixed for that board  under sub-sec.(1) being   deemed to be increased  accordingly.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

"65. Every board to have a  chairman and a vice-chairman\027  (1) For every board, there shall be  chairman and a vice-chairman.   

(2) The chairman shall be elected, in  accordance with rules made by the  State Government in that behalf, by  the members of the board from  amongst themselves.  

(3) The vice-chairman shall be  elected by the members of the  board from amongst themselves in  accordance with rules made in this  behalf.   

(4)   For every council there shall be  a president and a vice-president.   

(5)  The president  and the vice- president shall be elected in  accordance with rules made by the  State Government in that behalf, by  the councilors of the council from  amongst themselves.   

(6)       to (8) xxx xxx  xxxx   

(9) Every chairman and every vice- chairman of a board shall forthwith  be deemed to have vacated his office,  if a resolution expressing want of  confidence in him is passed by the  votes of a majority of the whole  number of members at a special  general meeting convened for the  purpose.  

(10 to (15) xxx xxx xxx"   

"72. Motion of non-confidence  against chairman [or vice- chairman].\027 (1) A motion  expressing non-confidence   in the  chairman [or vice-chairman] shall be  made only in accordance with the  procedure laid down in this section.   

(2)   A written notice of intention to  make a motion of non confidence in  the chairman [or vice-chairman],

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

signed by such number of members  of the board as constituted not less  than one-third of the whole  number of such members, together  with a copy of the motion which it is  proposed to make, shall be sent to  the prescribed authority, who shall  thereupon convene a meeting for the  consideration of the motion to be  held at the office of the board on the  date and at the time appointed by  him, which shall not be earlier than  twenty or later than thirty days from  the date of the receipt of the notice.   

(3)  The prescribed authority shall  send by registered post not less than  seven clear days before the date of  the meeting a notice of such meeting  and of the date and the time to be  appointed therefore to every member  of the board.  

(4) to (7) xxx xxx xxx     

(8) Upon the conclusion of the  debate or upon the expiry of the said  period of four hours, as the case may  be, the motion shall be put to the  vote of the board and the prescribed  authority or his nominee shall neither  speak on the merits thereof nor vote  thereon.   

(9)   If the motion is not carried by  a majority specified in sub-section  (9) of section 65 or if any meeting  cannot be held for want of a quorum,  no notice of any subsequent motion  of non-confidence in the same  chairman (or vice-chairman) shall be  received until the expiry of a period  of six months from the date of the  meeting."

"9.  Composition of boards\027(1)  Subject to the provisions contained  in the succeeding sub-sections, but  save as provided in the following  provisions of this sub-section, all  seats in a municipality shall be filled  by persons chosen by direct election  from the territorial constituencies  known as wards, the number of  such seats, not being less than  thirteen, being fixed by the State  Government from time to time by   notification in the Official  Gazette:\027   (a)     the following shall be  represented on the board,  council or corporation, as the  case may be, viz:\027  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

(i)     a member of the  Rajasthan Legislative  Assembly representing a  constituency which comprises  wholly or partly the area of a  municipality; and  

(ii)    three persons or ten  percent of the number of  elected members of the  municipality, whichever is  less, having special knowledge  or experience in municipal  administration, to be  nominated by the State  Government by notification  in the Official Gazette:  

Provided that\027   

(i)    the provisions contained in  section 26 and section 59 of  this Act shall be applicable to  the persons to be nominated or  nominated under sub-clause  (ii);   

(ii)   the State Government shall  have power  to withdraw a  member nominated under sub- clause (ii) at any time;   

(iii) the term of co-opted  members, if any, who were co- opted  and are continuing as  such on the date of  commencement of the  Rajasthan Municipalities  (Second Amendment) Act,  2000 (Act No.22 of 2000) shall  come to an end upon such  commencement:

Provided further that a member  referred to in sub-clause (ii) shall  not have the right to vote in the  meetings of a board, council or  corporation as the case may be;

(b)     A member of the house of  people representing a  constituency which comprises  wholly or partly the area of a  municipality with a municipal  council or as the case may be, a  municipal Corporation shall be  represented on the Council or  Corporation of such  municipality:

Provided that a member referred  to in sub-clause (i) of clause (a)  shall have a right to vote in the  meetings of a Board, Council or  Corporation and a member

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

referred to in clause (b) shall have  a right to vote in the meetings of a  Council or Corporation;"   

"65. Every board to have a  chairman and a vice-chairman\027- (1) For every board, there shall be a  chairman and a vice-chairman.

(2) The Chairman shall be elected, in  accordance with rules made by the  State Government in that behalf, by  the elected members of the board  from amongst themselves.

(3) The vice-chairman shall be  elected by the elected members of  the board from amongst  themselves in accordance with rules  made in this behalf.

(4)    For every council there shall be  a president and a vice-president.

(5) The president and the vice- president shall be elected in  accordance with rules made by the  State Government in that behalf, by  the elected councilors of the  council from amongst themselves.   (5A) to (8) xxx  xxx  xxx

(9) Every chairman and every vice- chairman of a board shall forthwith  be deemed to have vacated his office,  if a resolution expressing want of  confidence in him is passed in  accordance with the procedure  prescribed.

(10)  to \005 xxxxxx  xxxxxxx"

"72. Motion of non-confidence  against chairman.\027(1) Motion  expressing non-confidence in the  Chairman or the vice-chairman shall  be made and considered in the  manner prescribed.

(2)   No notice of motion under this  section shall be made within one  year of the assumption of office by a  Chairman or a Vice-Chairman.

(3) If a motion under sub-section (1)  is not carried, no notice of a  subsequent motion expressing non- confidence in the same Chairman or  Vice-Chairman shall be made until  after the expiration of two years from  the date of the meeting in which the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

motion was considered."

       Article 243R(1)&(2) of the Constitution was inserted by  Constitution (Seventy Fourth) Amendment Act, 1994 under  Chapter XIV-B.  It lays down guidelines with regard to the  Constitution, composition, election and rights of the members  of a municipality.  We quote hereinbelow the relevant  provisions:\027 "243R. Composition of Municipalities.\027 (1)  Save as provided in Clause (2), all the seats in a  Municipality shall be filled by persons chosen by  direct election from the territorial constituencies in  the Municipal area and for this purpose each  Municipal area shall be divided into territorial  constituencies to be known as wards.

(2) The Legislature of a State may, by law,  provide\027

(a)     for the representation in a  Municipality of\027

(i)     persons having special knowledge or  experience in Municipal  administration;

(ii)    the members of the House of the  People  and the members of the  Legislative Assembly of the State  representing constituencies which  comprise wholly or partly the  Municipal area;

(iii)   the members of the Council of States  and the members of the Legislative  Council of the State registered as  electors within the Municipal area;  

(iv)    The Chairpersons of the Committees  constituted under clause (5) of Article  243S;

Provided that the persons referred to  in paragraph (i) shall not have the right to  vote in the meetings of the Municipality;

(b) the manner of election of the  Chairperson of a Municipality."

As stated above despite the constitutional amendment  and the amendments to sections 9, 65 & 72 of the Act, the 1974  Rules were not amended.  We quote hereinbelow section 3(36)  of the Act which defines the term "whole number of members"  as well as Rule 3 of the 1974 Rules which as stated above have  remained unamended even after 1994:\027 "Section 3. Definitions \026 in this Act unless the  context otherwise requires -

(36) ’whole number’ or ’total number’ when  used with reference to the members of a board,  means the total number of members holding office

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

at the time."

"Rule 3.        Procedure etc. \027 (1) A written  notice of intention to make a motion of non- confidence in the Chairman or Vice-Chairman  signed by one third members of the Board together  with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be  made, shall be sent to the Collector of the District,  who shall thereupon convene a meeting for the  consideration of the motion to be held at the office  of the Board on the date and at the time appointed  by him, which shall not be earlier than twenty or  later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of  the notice.

(2)     The Collector shall send by registered post  not less than seven clear days before the date of the  meeting, a notice of such meeting and of the date  and time fixed thereof to every member of the  board.

(3)     The Collector or his nominee shall preside at  such meeting and if within half an hour from the  time appointed for the meeting collector or his  nominee is not present or is unable for any  unavoidable cause to preside at the meeting, the  meeting shall stand adjourned to the date and the  time to be fixed and notified to the members.

(4)     A meeting convened for the purpose of  consideration of the motion of no-confidence  under these rules shall not for any reason except  stated at sub-clause (3) be adjourned.

(5)     As soon as the quorum is present, the  Collector or his nominee shall read the motion for  the consideration of which the meeting has been  convened and declare it to be open for discussion.   No meeting for the consideration of motion of non- confidence shall be held unless the quorum is  present.  One-third of the whole number of  members shall form the quorum.

(6)     Such discussion shall not be adjourned and  shall automatically terminate on the expiry for four  hours from the time fixed for the commencement  of the meeting unless it is concluded earlier.

(7)     If the conclusion of the debate or upon the  expiry of the said period of four hours, as the case  may be, the motion shall be put to the vote of the  Board and the Collector or his nominee shall  neither speak on the merits thereof nor vote  thereon.

(8)     If the motion is not carried by 2/3rd majority  of the whole number of members, or if any  meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, the  motion of no-confidence against Chairman or  Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, shall be  deemed to have been lost.

(9)     If the motion is carried by a majority of 2/3rd  number of whole number of members, the motion

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

shall be deemed to have passed against the  Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall forthwith be  deemed to have vacated his office."

The question involved in the present civil appeals is  whether nominated members in a municipal board are to be  counted for calculating the majority required for carrying a no  confidence motion against a chairman/vice-chairman of the  board.   

At the outset, we may notice the legal position prior to  1994.  Section 3, which is a definition section, begins with the  words "unless the context otherwise requires".  Section 3(36)  defines the expression "whole number" or "total number" to  mean total number of members holding the office at the time.   Under section 72 read with section 274 of the said Act, the  State Government enacted the 1974 Rules, which have  remained unchanged till date.  Rule 3 prescribes procedure for  passing no-confidence motion.  Rule 3(5) states that no meeting  for consideration of no-confidence motion shall be held unless  the quorum of 1/3rd of the whole number of members is present.   Rule 3(8) states that if the motion is not carried by 2/3rd  majority of the whole number of members or if any meeting  cannot be held for want of quorum, the motion of no- confidence against the chairman/vice-chairman shall be deemed  to have been lost.  Rule 3(9) states that if the motion is carried  by a majority of 2/3rd of the whole number of members, the  motion shall be deemed to have been passed.  Section 9(4) dealt  with co-option of two members.  Under clause (ii) of sub- section (5) of section 9, the co-opted members had a right to  vote on all motions and accordingly they were put on par with  elected members.  Under section 65(9) of the Act, the office of  the chairman/vice-chairman stood vacated as and when no- confidence motion was passed by a majority of "the whole  number of members" and conversely if the motion was not  carried by a majority, such motion would fail.  Reading the  above provisions of the un-amended Act and the 1974 Rules, it  is clear that even prior to 1994 the legislative intent was that the  chairman/vice-chairman had to vacate his office on passing of  no-confidence motion by requisite majority of members who  had the right to vote, which included the co-opted members.  In  Law and Practice of Meetings by Shackleton  [8th Edition  Page-66] while explaining the word "Majority" the learned  author states that in legislative assemblies it is usual to decide  the questions by a majority of those who have voting rights.  The learned author, further states, that in cases where a motion  is to be determined by a majority consisting of 2/3rd of the  votes, the word "Majority" would mean majority of persons  entitled to vote on the proposal and once the motion is voted  upon by the requisite majority, it becomes resolution of the  meeting.  Therefore, the word "majority" would mean majority  of persons entitled to vote.  In the present case, the word  "majority" finds place in sections 65(9) and 72(9) of the Act  prior to amendment.  Therefore, even prior to 1994 amendment  of the Act, the legislature intended that the chairman/vice- chairman of the municipal board shall be removed only by a  requisite majority of members having right to vote on the  motion.  We are, therefore of the view that even prior to 1994,  the words "whole number of members" under rule 3 of the  1974 Rules meant total number of members who have voting  rights.   

There is no dispute with the proposition that the right to  elect and the right to be elected is a statutory right and that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

mode and manner of election to any post could be different  from the scheme of removal of a person from that post.   However, in each case, we have to examine the Act in question,  which we have done hereinabove.  In the circumstances, we do  not wish to discuss the judgments cited on behalf of the  appellant in support of the above proposition.  However,  reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of  Raees Ahmad v. State of U.P. reported in [(2000) 1 SCC 432].   In the said case this Court was concerned with the provisions of  U.P. Municipalities Act under which the chairman is elected by  direct election.  Under section 43 of the U.P. Act the chairman  is elected directly by the electorate on the basis of adult  franchise exercised by the voters of the area.  It is the case of  direct election.  On the other hand, in the present case under  section 65 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act with which we  are concerned the chairman is elected from amongst the elected  members of the board.  This distinction, in our view, is very  important.  As stated above prior to 1994 the co-opted and the  elected members were put on par.  Both the categories had the  right to vote.  The chairman was elected from amongst the  members of the board.  Consequently, the chairman/vice- chairman had to vacate the office when such members voted in  support of the motion.  In the circumstances, the judgment of  this Court in the case of Raees Ahmad (supra) has no  application to the facts of the present case.

In the present case, on facts, we are concerned with post  1994 position.  Article 243R brought about a drastic change in  the matter of composition of municipalities.  It lays down  guidelines with regard to the constitution, composition, election  and rights of the members of a municipality.  Under the said  Act, members of a municipality are persons chosen by direct  election by the residents of a municipal area (ward).  Article  243R(2)(a)(i) allows the legislature of a State to appoint any  person as a member of the board who has special knowledge in  the field of municipal administration, however, the proviso  appended to the said Article precludes persons nominated under  sub-clause (i) from having a right to vote in the meetings of the  municipality.  The Constitution, therefore, makes a distinction  between elected members and nominated members who play  essentially an advisory role.  Pursuant to the 74th Constitutional  amendment of 1994, sections 9, 65 and 72 of the Act were  amended.  Prior to the amendment the co-opted members were  at par with the elected members, however, after 1994 only  elected members and members of the legislative assembly have  a right to vote under section 9(1) of the Act.  Under sub-section  (2) of section 65, as amended, the Chairman has to be elected  by  "elected members of the board".  This change is very  important.  Prior to 1994, the Chairman was to be elected by the  "members of the board", which is the phrase used in the  unamended section 65(2), as the co-opted members had a right  to vote.  However, in 1994, section 65(2) of the Act was  amended and the expression "members of the board" in the old  section is substituted by the expression "elected members of the  board".  In fact, the expression "whole number of members"  earlier appearing in sections 65 and 72 of the Act have been  deleted because in section 65(2) it is expressly provided that the  Chairman shall be elected only by elected members of the board  from amongst themselves.  Therefore, the scheme of post 1994  Act is that the chairman/vice-chairman shall be elected by the  elected members of the boards and their office shall stand  vacated on passing of no confidence motion by the elected  members of the board.  The position which, therefore, emerges  is that both before and after 1994, the no-confidence motion  had to be voted upon by members who were entitled to vote.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

As stated above, section 3 of the Act begins with the words  "unless the context otherwise requires".  Section 3(36) defines  the expression "whole number"/"total number" to mean total  number of members holding the office at the given time.  The  said expression "whole number of members" finds place in rule  3(5), (8) and (9).  Hence, we have to read rule 3(5), (8) and (9)  in the context of the provisions of the said Act.  As stated  above, the basic scheme of the Act prior to 1994 and post 1994  has remained unchanged.  In both cases, the legislative intent  has been that the office of the chairman/vice-chairman shall  stand vacated on passing of no-confidence motion by the  members of the board who are entitled to vote.  Hence, in our  view, the expression "whole number" or "total number"  connotes the "total number of elected members".

In the case of Knowles v. Zoological Society of London  reported in [(1959) 1 WLR 823] it has been held by Court of  Appeals that the expression "majority of fellows entitled to  vote" in the bye-laws of a society would mean the majority of  those present at a meeting and entitled to vote and not the  majority of the whole electorate  whether present or not.  Before  us, as stated above, it was urged that the respondent is claiming  casus omissus in support of his argument that the words "whole  number of members" must be construed as "whole number of  elected members".  We do not find any merit in this argument.   In the case of State of Karnataka v. Union of India & Anr.  reported in [AIR 1978 SC 68 at page 107], it has been observed  by this Court that although a Court cannot supply casus  omissus, it is equally clear that it should not interpret a statute  so as to create a casus omissus when there is really none.

To sum up, under pre 1994 and post 1994 provisions, the  legislature intended that chairman/vice chairman shall be  removed on passing of no-confidence motion by requisite  majority of members having right to vote.  

For aforestated reasons, we do not find merit in the civil  appeals herein and accordingly the same are dismissed with no  order as to costs.