IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIL.ASPUR Writ Petition No.^^/_/2002 PETITIOI Shiv Kumar, S/o Jagat. Rani, Aged about. 35 ;/ears, Up-Sarpanch, Grani Panchayat Bija Tarai, R/o Village- Bija Tarai, P.0. Biia Tarai,T'ehsil-M.ungeli <n.n.i Versus- RESPONDE]!.sTS &. 1 j-^s^ -^"^^ '.c,^^-'" ••'State ofChhattisgarh, Thoueh Secretan/, Department of Panchayat, Mantralay, ShasiTi Chowk, 'Raipur. Additional Collector, <'^ {"^ \ l--,\J, ^.'^^''Vj.? ^.v" ,^v'^" ^••""° 6<i'~ > ynn sjawa]~i K.uaiar, S/o luranta oatn-arui, Aged about 35 years, Sarpanch (reinoved) R/o Bya Tarai, MimgeU, Distrkst-Bilaspur. I^^S^^Rn* PBTmON UNDER ARTICUi 226/227 OF THE -^ ^^''®^STITUTIONOF INDIA FOR iSSUANC^QEA.WRlT.IH ^THX HATURE__OF MANDAMUS. ^PRQHimTlQS- Q^'gfi^CIORARI ETC.OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION ug ^^^Q_gI^;RTO_DQ_,JUSTICE!NTHE?Mri'ER. Details of the petiuon. .{ ^^3.£3.£^.^-A 3.^ •S. ^&A £SAA^^&fc3r£"<^^ W.P.No.464 of 200.2 \:/~ \ Shiv Kuniai' Vs. State of Cnhattissaj'h & others 'ost tbr fi-5-2003 Sd/. Fakhruddin Judge COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILAl : PUR W.P^No.464 of 2002 Shlv . Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others Preseat: Hon'ble Shrl Justice Fakhruddin Shri Prashant Jaiswal with Sliri Vinav Pandi , leej'ned counsel for the petltloner. Shri Ayaz Naved, Paiiel Lawyer State/Respondents no. 1 and 2. or tne Shri M.D. Dhote with Vinod Tekam, couii^ 1 for the respondent No.3. By ihis writ petitlon flled imder Artlcle 226/j 1~i of The 1 Constitution of Iiidia, the petitioner prays for qua.sll; ng 01 the I: ! order dated 30.1.2002 (Annexure P-3) passea by the Additional Collector, District Bilaspur. j 2. Brieflv sfated the facts of the case are ] liat the 1 i petitioner, who is the Up-Sarpanch of Graai Panc]] lyat. Bija i Taral, has fllecl thls writ petitlon on the ground th; ; ags.lnst [•' respondent No.3 Pawan Kumar, Sarpanch no ct afidence motion. was validlv passed on 9.3.2001 and acco^ ingly he was removed from fhe office. 3. It is submitted that no coi-ifidence ino1j: >n dulv supported by l/3t'd members w?s.; moved by Panii'ias. Tlie 2 total strength of the grani Panchayat was 16 inchj; ling the Sarpanch. In the raeeting convened, 16 persons icluding !• Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch were present and votirli . Out of 1 16 members, 11 indicated ttieu' intention for the m^ ion and 5 persons cast theu' votes against the said motion. 4. The proceedings of the record have been r ed vide AnnexLire P-1 ^ Coluran 3 of Annexure P-1 st.at.es tj at since niore than 2/3rd votes have been cast in favour the no confldence motion, resolutlon is passed. Thls 4 solullon (Aiinexm-e P-1) was challenged by respondent No Kum.ar; before the Additional Collector. Pawan 5. Dispute was referred under sectkin 21 (4) of thlj Madhya Pradesh Panchavat Rai Adhinivain, 1993. The J Iditional 1 I. Collector, m compllaiice of this Court order clated ^ 5.1.2002 (Annexure P-2), passed the order dated order dated | ). 1.2002 (Aruiexure P-3) and held that the resolution has be| i passed by 11 ineitibers which is less than 3/4th m.ein| irs, and I. I: requirenient thereof under section 21 (1) Pancl wat Raj Ahdhtniyam was not complled with and as t ich, the resolution was not validly passed. It was noted thal votes, 3/4th of it would be 12 votes aiid since 12 not been cast for passing the resolution, it was tf )Ut of 16 tes nave it validlv passed. 6. The petitioi'icr who is Up-Saq^anch has led this peiltlon challenging The order passed by the dditional CoUector (Annexure P-3). He subruits that. the reril lution has 1 been passed in accordaiice with law and order o| ai.dditional Collcctor setting aside the said resolution is legal and contrary to law. | 7. Section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Addhiiji. -am, 1993 deals vvith no confidence niotion. against the Sajj; anch and t Up-SarpEinch of Graia Panchayat. Section 21 is r^i svant and quoted herein bek>w :- { 1 '21. No-confldence motion against Sa| 'anch and Up-Sarpanch. - (1) Oii a motion of no-canfu^ nce being passed by the Grain Panchayat by a resolut m passed by majority of not less than three fourth of ril ' pcuichas present and voting and such majority is mo| than two third of the total number of Panchas oon^ tuting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, the Sarp^ \ ich or Up- Sarpanch against -whom such motion is pa^ sed, shall cease to hold office forthwith. | (2) Notwithstanding anything contcdnec^ \n this Act or the rules made there-under a Sarpanch\ ?r an Up- Sarpanch shall not preside over a meetiiig | i which a t motion of no confidence is discussed agcuns^ him. Such meeting shall be convened in such inanner \; s may be prescribed and shall be presided over by an ^ icer ofthe Govertiment as the Prescribed Authority m<j| f appoint. The Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the cc^! s may be, shall have a right to speak at, or otherwise ^ take part in, the proceeding of the meeting. j (3) No-confidence motion skall not lie | •jaii'ist the Sarpa.nch or Up-Sarpanch or Up-Sarpcincf^ ivithin a. \ period of- t 4 (ij one year from the date on li lich the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch erli 'r their respective office; \ (ii) suc months preceding the date onj fhich the term of offlce of the Sarpana or Up- Sarpanch, as the case may be, ej nres; (iiij one year from the date on wkic^ previous motion ofno-confidence was rej'ej ed. {(4) Ifthe Sarpanch or the Upsarpanch, ct the case may be, desires to challenge the valv^ 'y of the motion carried out under sub-section (l^ he shall, within seven days from the date on it '-lc^- such motion was carried, refer the dispil; ' to the Collector who shall decide it, as far a4 possible, within thirty days from the date on wJi ;h it iyas received by him, and his decision shall iBi final.]" 8. A perusal of sub-section 2 of section 21 shj; vs that a Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch shall not preside over q ; meeting f in which inotkin of confklence is discussed as| inst hiin. t' However, a Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch shall have rig b to speak at or otherwise to take part in proceedings of ttt Here in the present case, the Sarpanch agatast wK ia confidence motion has been passed took part^the ] aieeting. m the no- , 0^1 oceecimgs and cast his vote. | I. r 9. Certainrules have been franied by the Statl of Madhya Pradesh and these niles have been adopted by ^ e State of i Chhattisgarh as well. Rule 3 of the M.P. Panch| fat (Oram Pemchayat Ke Sarpcmch Tatha Up-Sarpcw^ ^ Janpad -? \ o Vice-President Ke Verudh Avishwas Prastav) AKgj fn 1994 deals wifh ffae notk:e whfch is relevant and qiioted tj; knv:- 3. Notice. — (1) Elected members of Gram. P|| Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat desiring motwn of no confidence rnotion against the Sc& ? Up Sarpanch of a Cram Panchayat or Preside\ President of Janpad of Ziia Panchayat, as thel be, shall give a notice thereofto theprescribed iji in the form. appended to these rales: | Provided that such notwe shall be sign| less than one third of the total inember q| mem.bers ofthe concemed Pcaichayat: i Provided fu.rther that -where the elected] desire to move the motion of no confldence agl the Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch, President ; President ofJanpad Panchayat orZila Pa?zchcn|| case ma-y be, they shall give separate notice. | (2) The prescribed authority on receiving ?io|i sub-ru.ie (1) shall sign thereon a certificate sj date on ivhich hour and at ivhich the notice J given to hirn and shall acknawledge its receipt. 1 (3) On receiving the notice under suft-raj prescribed authority shall satisfy himself ( admissibility ofthenotice with reference to Secj 28(3) ctnd 35(3), as the ccise may be. On l^ satisfied, he shall fix the date, time and pla^ meeting of the Cram Panchayat, Janpad Pai^ Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, which s/i more thanfifteen daysfrom the date ofreceipt ^ notice. The notice of such meeting spedfyin^ tune and plaoe thereof shall be cattsed to be di by him through the Secretary of the Gram Paii Chief Executive Officer ofthe Janapad orZila ia| ichayat inove a vanch or • or Vice xse may tthoritity 1 by not elected rtembers nst both nd Vice t, as the •e under iting the as been (1) the wut the in21(3), ing thiis ' for the 'iayat or II not be the said he date, ipatched hayat or iichayat, 6 as the case may Ve, to every member of the concemed seven days before the meeting. 10. Rule 4 further deals with the appointiuent oi Officer, which reads as under: znchayai Prescribed Authority shall appoint an QffU Govemment under Sub-section (2) of Sectio?| section (2) ofSection 28, or sub-sectton (2) ofSt preside over the meeting of the Grcan Panchay^ Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case rru^ the pwpose of co-izsidering the no canfidef^ against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, a Revenue belou' the rank of Naib Tehsildar, against Pt Vice Pf'esident ofJanpad Panchayat [Office nojl rank of Deputy Collector] and agauist Presid^ President of Zila Panchayat the Collector or \ i Collector shall be appointed to preside over ST^ and the prescribed authority shall inform the 4 f the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Qffice^ Panchayat or Zila Panchayat as the case m<ji the Collector of the district about such qppcji least 3 days before the datefbcedfor m.eeting.\ Rule 5 deals with Conduct of nieeting whicli under: 1 5. Conduct of meeting.- (1) The presiding C| record the attendance of the mejnbers of the { present at the meeting. 1. [xxx] 2.{(3) The Presiding Offlce shall ask any ofthe j to the notice to move the nwtion.] 'residing er.- The r of the 21, sub- tton 35 to ; Janpcfd be. For e motion fficer not sident or yelow the it or Vice ^dditional h meeting Tetary of ifJanpad f be, and itment at reads as tcer shall 'anchayat '.gnatories ^ ST ^ (4) Afier the motion is moved by the mov^, shall first ;! spea.k on the motion and thereafter othsr me'j bers fnay, if they so desire, speak on the motion. j t! !'5) On the conclv-sion of the debate on fhei wtion, me Presiding Qfficer shall call the members pr^ ent vi the meeTing one by one and shall give rhem ballo^ 'aper duly s'igned by him to indicate its aiithenticity, to c{ s? his vots for or aciairist the moticin. The snember who ivj its to vote in favour of the motion shail afftf. the siimbod ) ca'id. the ii ^TiS7Tll?&?' U/'^ZO IVCi^'itS IG VQtff- CZQC^.il'iSt tJ^ff 7?ZO^IO?1 : ^}ldll dffi.X. j /., l-UZ-1,^ IAJJ the syjrtbol 'X'. After tfie member has recorcU i fds voie, he shallfold the ballot paper to inaintam. secr^ 'y undpiit i| it Z7i T/tS Dd.iiGt -OO^C '^Sl^T- G?Z Tfl^S TCi^iS Os UZ.ci i"1"SS'i€i.l^'lG -£ ^/ ?! i^- Officer. j (G) AftsT tHs voti'J'iQ' is QVST. tfie PTssidijip. Q icsT sHall i take out the ballot papers frorn the bcdf. t box coid ' ' ^ 1 sort ouf the votes for an aaainst the md on. Jf the l\.,.. nuTn.ber of votes in favour of the fnotiofi 'utf'Us the -. - - - . - -. - ' ^i' " reqtiiremeni of sub-section (1) of Secrioji 21, sub- .!; section (1) of section 28, or sT,h-se<^ yn (1) of Section 35, as the case may be, trtq Pi'es'idi-ig itiail.1 r). 'ctare that the mot& 'i of no r nnii.fii^.s?7i-^ff isi ni^ss-Kfi^. II v/T^-/^/t/^ i! !• 11. Learned counsel for the parties hav&not disj| uted the i ruanner in which the uieeting was convened, but th|| quesTion ior consideration of the cae>e iu lian.d is as to whetl ;r the iiu |; comldence has been validly passed or noT, in Thq meeiing. i; 'l'here is no dispuie t'aat out oftotal members of loj acluding i'i ll the Sai'pan.ch, 11 iiieiiibers ca.st their vote in fa.vou| : 3f the no conndence niotion and 5 iiiembers cast their vores a| unst the .V « motion. However, Sliri Prashant Javaswal witJi £i Paiidey appearing, tbr the petitioiier submitted| meeting was convened and resolution has been accordance with law, as such respondent no.3 renioved froni the office, but ui appeal pre| respoiideiit iio.3, llie Colleclor Iias 1101 validly p| order relecting the resolution dated 09.3.2001. Sl with Shri Tekam appearing for t.he respondent: No.,^ Naved appeariiig for the State, on the other hand, (j that it has validly passed. 12. Leamed counsel for the respondents relied on i reported in 1997 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar, 73 (Satish ri Vinav that the issccl iii as been I rred bv |>sed llie Iri Dliote land Shn ntended Collector, uabalpur and others whercin in paraj been held as under: "IVhen a m.0tion of no-confidence is mov^ a Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch under section 21 <j the resolution of no-confidence can be said to ^ passed ifthe resolution of no-confidenee is carrj required rnajority as envisaged in sub-sect^ section 21. Section 21 11) requires two <1 sssentialtii to be fu'ifilled; one, the ,'norion confidence is passed bii the Grcun Panclvx decision ?at®iv. 1 it 1-ias respbition oassed bii mamritv of not less W fourth of the Panchas present and votinci an^ Tngi_sv.ch mafonty is ?norejtori_ru'crtftird_qfj mimber of Panchas constitiitinci the Gram Pand the time beinq. Therefore, for a valid resolut confidence. it has to be seen that the tiuo cond fulfilled. If either of the conditions is not fu.li against the Act, 've been d by f.he 1 (1) Of ndinons of no El &.y a !i three- seco'rid, he l.otal m/a?' ror n of no !ons:are teci, tHs ^ motton of no-confidence will not be considerec^ pcissed as the two conditions are not independ\ other. In order to see that the two coni. independent the word 'and' is to be read as !o\ oonditioi'is should themselves be coinplete and | of operating independently. Unless this test i^ the conjiinction 'and' ivould have to be read into u}hat follouis it from the conditions or con set out infirst part'. (Bfnphasis supp\ Para 7, 8 aiid 9 ai~e also relevaiit ail below: - 7. It is luell aettled that the uiord 'or' y disfunctive and 'and' is coniunctive. but. at f a.re read vice versa to give effect to the Tnanife^ of the Legislatu.re and to avoid uninteldgible result. See The Principles of Statutory interp^ Justice G.P. Singh, 6th Edition, Page 292. If\ •and' is read as 'or' zuhich is nonnally disju^ 'and' is normal.ly conjunctive and not read as cc then two requirements of aection 21 (1) of the not be necessary, w'rdch is not the mtentK) Legislature in the setting ofthe language ty.h.ich conjunctive sense ofthe word 'and' subserving\ oj~ the provision. If it is read as 'or the result t}cat tlie motion of no-confidence would be p| resolution on any of the condifions fulfllled't inajority of more than ti'-'o-third i'otes in fav^ resolution, ivhich is not the requirement ofsecti{ S, In case of Soji Nayak (supra), this <\ taken the view that both the conditiovis are »j and section 21 fl) does not confer passvi resolution by simple majority. Same ?'.s the inei^ case Gj BecHan Kc^Ti PaiKra fouprci^ |s valid.lv it ofeach lons are both fiie s capable scftisfied mpoi'ting ideration ;:s4? ; quoted noritially les they i.ntention " absurd ation bv he ivord tive and jiinctwe, •:t IVOUld i of the i ussd in 'ie ovject foui.d be 1f\^ J Uij ir b-u a r of the t 21. lurt has csssary of the taken in 10 c^ 9, A Division Bench of this Court in\ Ramsingh Soni (sitpra^ while considering the i resolution passed under sectwn 18 (2) of C,P.| Panchcafat Act, 1946, wherein Gra'm fl consisted of 14 members and on the consideration of motion, only 9 Panchas wer{ ii.'ho all voted in favour of the motion ofno-confii question for detennination ivas of the co'ristruc^ words 'carried by a majority oftiuo-third ofth^ constitution the Gram Panchayat occiirs'ed in 4 (1) of the Act', the Court calculated two-third 74 arithmeticall'y as 9-1/3 and aft.er consicj expression a niajority of tiuo-third of the\ obserued ,that it would mean 9-1/3 or numbl that 9-1/3 and not less than 9-1/3 and there^ very nature of thing a rrvajority of two-thi^ Panchas would be constitu.ted by 10 membeit and not by 9 members. s i,n.y 13- A Division Bench ofM.P. Hish Court, also tool| -< view while quotuig section 2 1 in case of Surends-ij lcase of [ise of a |&> Berar \nchccyat liate of ijpresent :'nce, the |»nofthe iPanchas lcffon 18 1 irnber of \ring the Pancfias " qrearer re in the E qf ffie or more State of M.P. and others rcportcd iu 1997 Bhasvar, 15, where it has been hcld ki paragraph ^ as under :- "6. Shri P...D. Jain, leamed counsel for ?1 Aro, 4, Anandi Bai ivhile supporting the\ nidgment fwther contended mat the pro^ mandatory a^ held by leamed Single Ju\ Petition No. 1447 of 1995. Shri Jain corit| sofar as this ca.se is concenied. the 'no <| resolution, which is said to have been per oivn shoiuing of the appellant, doe^ the requirement of secti.an 21 oftheAct. he saiae :Siad3L v. li Vldlii 7 aiid 'spondent mpUypzed Sions are fe in Writ ided that nfidence' unefl, as naffuljvl a°.much 1 as, it is not passed by Three-fourth of tf^ present and voting. Section 21 (1) is reieij quoted beloiv:- '21. No confidence motioi Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch - (1)0n no-confidence being passed by Panchayat by a resolution passed | of not 'less than three-fourth of th| oresent and votina and such mawi\ than tivo-third of the total nuinber <j c^>nstiiuting the Gram Panchayat f{ being, the Sm'panch or Up-Sarpani whom such motion is passed, sha| hold office forthwtfh." 7. We find greatforce in the submi^ by counsel for respondents. Without goij validity ofthe meeting, in. the case it is\ the no confidence nwtion has no't been three-fourth of the Panchas present an4 perusal of Annexwe P/2 shows and th{ position is that there were total 15 uoj Sarpanch and 14 Panchas. Out ofthem. | voted in favour of no confidence m< appellant, in this appeal, in para 4 also 'That, on 18.9.1995, all the mem^ Grcan Panchayat re'mained prest participated in. the proceedings of vi confidence, out of 15 members 11 inevn^ Panchas ccisted their votes in favour o.f| confidence. Wliere 15 persons are present, three-faurth c^ woiild be 11.25. 13.25 tnemis more than el requirewient of seotion 21(1) is that resolutioi passed by not less than three-fowth of tht present and voting. It wcis therefore required n that 12 persoris ought to have voted in favi confidence motion'. In 1962 MPLJ SN 122 tRar . Collector Raipurj, sinular point was involvei 2-' c Panchas nf and is aaainst motion of ie Gram r majomy Panchas y is more \Panchas the tifne i against cease to ion made ? into the 'lear that issed by voting. A ddfnitted rs - one persc-iis lon. : Tlie ited that- rs o/ the it ana " of no rs of the pte o.fno iparichas ven. Tne \is to be Panchas •kis case r oj 'no- ~,igh Soni It was a ^r ^.•'^•K'RO^ipssiB'JJB'JSBBSB 12 r case wheretn nuyority kadto be carried by tenandnot by nine and half members should vote for the motion to be effective. K was heldin this case that- 'thafunder section 18 (1), iffhe motion of no-confidence was carried by a inajortty of two-thirds of the Panchas constftuting the Gram Panchayat the Sarpanch was required to resign within three days of the passing qfthe motion. The two-thirdnumber of 14 was ajithmetically 9- 1/2. Therefore, in the nature ofthingsa majority of two- fhirds of the Panchas would be constituted by ten members or more and not by nine menibers. Themotian carried against the petttioner by nine Panchas cauldnat be said to have been carried by a majority of the two- thirds of the Pancbas constituting the Gram Qxnchayat. That bein.g so, the petitionerwas nat reqiwedtoresign in consequence of the passing of that motipn and'.the •^ ' : •' ' . .;:.. • ' i^ Collector had no jurisdictwn to make an arder under section; 18 (2) for the petitioner's remoyal. (Petition allowed)' . : i: 8 Invieiu.ofthis ad.'mittedpositiori, and in view of the proceedings, •whichhavebeenfUedin ivritpettfwn, as Annexu.re P-2, no cdnfidenee motion was mst carrteS,,tyy 12 Panchas cmd as^swBh^dpes notjulfitt the reqiwerf^nt vrider section 21 qf^ie Act. Ei this vieiu pf the rnatter^ :jso far as this petifion is concemed, 'it is.not necessaryftiiyus to go mto atherquestions/AGOordiitgly,thedppea.lJMts' and isi dismissed. Iri the facts and ctrcumstaKces.iW order as 14- Learned .i u. lias beeii Iield a X" to cost' counsel for ffae petitiQner placed r&ianee pn decisk>u reporfed in 1999 ](&| %-P / L.J., 631 uiiGasie-sQflDes! 'I'ital»iillure'alaidi«ith<MSs,i?|ujirti4ir a. y: iallS 1 Q -I- *J *9. Section 21 of the Act deals reqitiTements ofthe no-confidence m.0tioi[ to be treated to have been carried-out. (1) ofsection 21 ofthe Act is as exti'acte{ '(1) 0?z a m.otion of no-confidt wtth the when it is M-section 'below :- ;oe being passed bv the Gram PancftallOT bv a resolution passed by a majority than three-fourth of the Panchas p^ voting and such majority is more^ third of ths total nuniber oj[ constituting the Grwn Panclvxyat j^ .being. the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpaf^ whom. such motion is passed, sht hold offlce forthwtth."' It provides that the Resolution of Panchayat must have been passed by fl not te-s.s than three-foiinh of the Panch^ and voting. So the question for ooiisi^ wheiher on the basis of the above flg^ would be the mmimum strength by u,'.hi'c| could be said to have been passed in f| case. The three-fourth qf 1 1 comes to b| words used in the provision are 'not three-fourth of the Pancfias present ur| The presiding officer treated the figur^ sufficient figure for the Re3olution ofno-^ to 1vs.ve t>een passed against the pettt^ figiire 8 is less than three-fourth of l^ present and voting and therefare, the officer/retuiTdng officer has ened in lc^ figure 8 is less tlzan three-fourth of l^ presenr and votina. The words "noz l\ mean it must be three-fowth ofthe Panch<\ not Iffss 'sent and han two- Panchas - the tirne 'i against cease to ie Gram. ajonty of ; present ration is •es ivhat a motion • wesent 8.2. The 'ss than votirig . of 8 as nfidence ner. The Panchas iresiding ; as the Pancfias :s than' present ^. j||i||||Mijl|-eifia!! t* s sMaaBss' ''";SeiRIIS 14 w c^. c' and voting and no tess, which tn. the present case, must Ve 9'. 15, Leamed counsel for tfae respondents submlts thaf in view of the provision cQntained iii. section 21 ancl the judgm.ents refen'ed above, it is clear that fhere are two essential requirements which iare to be iulfilled, one, the motion of no confidcncc is passcd by thc Gram Panchayat by a resolution passcd by inajority ofnot less ^than three fourth of the Panctias present and voting and second that such majority is niore tlian tnT6 tliird of tlie total humber of Panchas constituting the Graai Panchayat. Ifone requirem.ent is fuMUed and tfae otfa,er is not ftilfUled then the':BiQ'Eion cannot bc said to faave been ·vaiud.Lv passcd. In fhe pre^c:n1 case where 16 persons were ; present, C^ thls respdndent Pawan Kumar, Sarpancli has also.took part in tlle iiieeting. Out of 16 nienibers, 11 niembers indicated theu' intention ui favour ofno|-con|:MeriGe.DaQtiph,which coines tlelow 3j'-!:l'th inajority whereas the required niajority should be 12. SMce requlrenient thc fu-st passed cannot 'compliance of fhe resolutiQn. required to be lulfflled for iplassrn: itsidf is not fulftlted, the resohltibn 'been. toe sald to 'have/valldly; passed.;. Mere: 'W ;. ~ ~ \ any requirement alone is not enougtt to ^/ass Indeed bot]a:requipernisnts.areesserifial|^jiui| 16. The petjttionei'^jia.! gi^uuid. that the Adclitionat^oUNsitOr'tia^ plaEVif of a walui rfesohitasn, 'fS e&'Qae :Biefiitioii •la.asSaU^ •" s^t!3 '; KiJ :31illN ^