AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Nagamuthu, J.—The challenge in this writ appeal is to the order made in W.P.(MD) No. 4239/2010, dated 12.04.2010, wherein the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition. The 3rd Respondent is a Town Panchayat governed by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Appellant is an elected member of the said Town Panchayat. The total sanctioned strength of the members of the Council is 15. As of now, there are only 13 members. Admittedly, for Ward No. 6, there was no election held. Out of the 13 members, 11 members moved a resolution expressing no confidence against the president. As required u/s 40-A of the Act, a meeting was held presided over by the 2nd Respondent. In the said meeting held on 19.03.2010, all the 13 members participated, out of whom 11 members supported the resolution of no confidence against the president, whereas the president and another member voted against it. The 2nd Respondent in his proceedings, dated 19.03.2010, held that the no confidence motion was not passed. According to him, as per Section 40-A of the Act, 4/5th of the members of the sanctioned strength should support such a resolution so as to declare the same as passed. In this case, according to the 2nd Respondent, 12 members are required to support the resolution to pass the same, whereas there were only 11 persons who supported and so the no confidence motion was defeated.
Challenging the above decision of the 2nd Respondent, the Appellant filed the writ petition. It was contended in the writ petition that since the election to the 6th ward was never conducted, that too, even during the previous elections, the same should not be counted as against the sanctioned strength. Therefore, according to the Appellant, the sanctioned strength should be considered only as 14 and therefore the minimum required number of members to support the resolution of no confidence should be not less than 11. In this case, since there were 11 votes in support of the resolution, according to the Appellant, the resolution should have been declared as passed. But, the said contention was negatived by the writ Court. That is how the Appellant is now before this Court with this writ appeal.
We have heard Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Government Advocate, appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent Town Panchayat.
Before going into the facts of the case, let us have a look into Section 40-A of the Act, which states as follows:
40-A. Motion of no-confidence in Chairman or vice-chairman.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a motion expressing want of confidence in the chairman or vice-chairman may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down herein.
(2) Written notice of intention to make the motion in such form as may be fixed by the State Government, signed by such number of councillors as shall constitute not less than three-fifth of the sanctioned strength of the council, together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be made, shall be delivered by any two of the councillor, signing the notice in person together, to the Regional Director of Municipal Administration.
(3) The Regional Director of Municipal Administration shall then convene a meeting for the considerations of the motion, to be held at the municipal office, at a time appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under Sub-section (2) was delivered to him. He shall give to the councillors notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting and of the time appointed therefor.
(4) The Regional Director of Municipal Administration shall preside at the meeting convened under this section, and no other person shall preside there at. If within half an hour after the time appointed for the meeting Regional Director of the Municipal Administration is not present to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to a time to be appointed and notified to the councillors by the Regional Director of Municipal Administration under Sub-section (5).
(5) If the Regional Director of Municipal Administration is unable to preside at the meeting, he may, after recording his reasons in writing, adjourn the meeting to such other time as he may appoint. The date so appointed shall not be later than thirty days from the date appointed for the meeting under Sub-section (3), Notice of not less than seen clear days shall be given to the councillors of the time appointed for the adjourned meeting.
(6) Save as provided in Sub-section (4) and (5) a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under this section, shall not for any reason be adjourned.
(7) As soon as the meeting convened under this section has commenced, the Regional Director of Municipal Administration shall read to the council the motion for consideration of which it has been convened, and declare it to be open for debates.
(8) No debate on any motion under this section shall be adjourned.
(9) Such debate shall automatically terminate on the expiry of two hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting, if it is not concluded earlier. Upon the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the said period of two hours, as the case may be, the motion shall be put to the vote of the council.
(10) The Regional Director of Municipal Administration shall not speak on the merits of the motion, nor shall he be entitled to vote thereon.
(11) A copy of the minutes of the meeting together with a copy of the motion and the result of the voting thereon shall forthwith on the termination of the meeting be forwarded by the Regional Director of Municipal Administration to the State Government.
(12) If the motion is carried with the support of not less than four-fifth of the sanctioned strength of the council, the State Government shall, by notification, remove the chairman or vice-chairman.
(13) If the motion is not carried by such a majority as aforesaid, or if the meeting cannot be held for want of a quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same chairman or vice-chairman shall be received until after the expiry of one year from the date of the meeting.
(14) No notice of a motion under this section shall be received,-
(i) within one year of the assumption of office by; or
(ii) during the last year of the term of office of a chairman or a vice-chairman.
Any motion expressing want of confidence in the chairman or vice-chairman made u/s 40-A and pending before any office, authority or the Government, as the case may be, as provided in Section 40-A, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall abate.
Section 40-A(12), as amended by T.N. Act 37/2007, reads as follows:
40-A(12).If the motion is carried with the support of not less than four-fifth of the sanctioned strength of the council, the State Government shall, by notification, remove the chairman or vice-chairman.
In the case on hand, indisputably, the sanctioned strength of the members of the council is 15. Therefore, going by the plain reading of the above section, it can be safely concluded that insofar as the council in question is concerned, a minimum number of 12 members are required to support a no confidence motion to pass the said motion. But, in the instant case, the motion was supported by only 11 members and, therefore, the 2nd Respondent was right in concluding that the motion was defeated. But, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, as we have already stated, would contend that since election to one ward was not at all held due to various reasons, the said vacant post of member shall not be counted as against the sanctioned strength of the council. It may be true that for the reasons best known to the Respondents there has been no election held for Ward No. 6. But, that will not automatically have the effect of reducing the sanctioned strength of the council to 14.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant would further submit that Section 40-A(12) of the Act should be interpreted in such a way having regard to the context and the text and having regard to the intention of the legislature while making the said provision. Learned Counsel would submit that the golden rule of interpretation is to construe a statutory provision by having in mind the purpose behind the provision and the context. If such contextual and purposive construction is made, the said provision will surely mean that the sanctioned strength shall be the strength of wards for which the election was held. Though this argument prima facie appears to be attractive, we are not persuaded by the same. It is only in cases where there is some doubt regarding the meaning of a particular provision in a statute or if a particular provision in the statute is capable of being understood in more than one sense, then it is absolutely necessary for the court to adopt the construction which would take forward the object of the statute. In order to find out the intention of the legislature, as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court repeatedly, it is absolutely necessary to look into the context in which the particular expression has been used in the provision and the purpose behind the provision, etc. But in a case where the language of the provision in question is plain and capable of being understood in only one sense, without there being any doubt regarding the same, the said provision should be construed applying the natural and ordinary meaning to the words in the provision. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel Vs. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra and Others, , wherein it has been held as under:
Crawford on Statutory Construction" (Edn. 1940, Article 261 p.516) sets out the following passage from an American case approvingly:
...One of the fundamental rules of interpretation is that if the words of a statute are themselves precise and unambiguous, no more is necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense, the words themselves in such case best declaring the intention of the legislature....
Insofar as Section 40-A of the Act is concerned, the said provision came to be amended on more than one occasion. A plain reading of the same would make it very clear, without any doubt, that the term ''sanctioned strength'' means the total number of seats in the council. It is irrelevant as to whether any seat has fallen vacant because there was no election or because an elected member has either resigned or died or removed from office. Therefore, we have got no hesitation to hold that in respect of the council in question the sanctioned strength is 15 and, therefore, as per Section 40-A(12) of the Act, support of atleast 12 members are required to pass the resolution of no confidence against the president. Thus, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the impugned proceedings of the 2nd Respondent holding that no confidence motion was defeated is perfectly valid in law and the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, we are in full agreement with the judgment of the writ court.
In the result, the writ appeal fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2010 is also dismissed.