HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.27734 of 2008 ORDER: The notice in Form-V, issued by the R.D.O to all the members of the Mandal Parishad, informing them that a meeting would be held wherein a motion of no-confidence against the President of the Mandal Parishad would be taken up, is questioned in this writ petition by a member of the Mandal Parishad who did not sign the notice in Form –II. The sole contention urged by Sri C.Raghu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the words “not less than one half of the total number of members” in the Mandal Parishad, in Section 245(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, must be read as “more than one half of the total number of means”, for giving a purposive construction to the language used in Section 245(1) of the Act. Learned Counsel would point out that the Mandal Parishad in question has sixteen members and, if one half of the total number of members i.e., 8 were permitted to initiate the process of no-confidence, it would eventually be an exercise in futility, for even if all the eight, out of sixteen members, voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence, it would still not suffice for the motion to be carried through. Learned counsel would state that, since it is evident from the notice in Form-II that only 8 of the 16 members had filed an application seeking to move a no-confidence motion, no useful purpose would be served in calling for a meeting where the motion of no-confidence would be taken up. Learned Counsel would submit that if the words ‘not less than’ in Section 245(1) were to be read as “more than”, it would subserve the object of both the legislation, and the subordinate rules made thereunder, for, if more than one-half of the total number of members had expressed their intention to move the motion of no-confidence, then in the meeting to be held for that purpose, the motion would undoubtedly be carried through. Learned Counsel would also point out the infirmity in Explanation I to Rule 2 of the Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 28.4.1998 wherein, for arriving at one half of the total number of members in Rule-2, any fraction below 0.5 shall be ignored and any fraction of 0.5, or above 0.5, shall be taken as one. Learned Counsel would state, rightly so, that in no case would one half of the total number of members fall below the fraction of 0.5 and that such a reading of the rule would invariable require one half to be read as the next higher number. It is evident from a literal reading of the Rule that the intention to move a no-confidence motion must be by not less than one half of the total number of members. It is not for courts to take upon themselves the task of re-writing legislation or to substitute the words in the Act with another. It is not for courts to supply words to Section 245(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning. (Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit vs. State of Maharashtra[1]). The legislature may be safely presumed to have intended what the words plainly say. (Bhaiji vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla[2]). What is to be borne in mind is what has been said in the statute and what has not been said. A construction which requires, for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words, has to be avoided. (Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. Vs. Custodian of Vested Forests[3], Shyam Kishori Devi Vs. Patna Municipal Corpn[4], A. R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak[5], Dental Council of India Vs. Hari Prakash[6], J. P. Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan[7] and State of Jharkhand Vs. Govind Singh[8]). The primary rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislation must be found in the words used by the Legislature itself. The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has been said. (Unique Butyle Tube Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation[9]). Courts should not, ordinarily, add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when a literal reading thereof produces an intelligible result. (Delhi Financial Corpn vs. Rajiv Anand[10]). There is a line, though thin, which separates adjudication from legislation. That line should not be crossed or erased. Courts expound the law, they do not legislate. (State of Kerala vs. Mathai Verghese[11], Union of India vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal[12]). A Judge is not entitled to add something more than what is there in the Statute by way of a supposed intention of the legislature. (Union of India vs. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd[13]). The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. (Maruti Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. S.T.O., I.S.T. Circle, Mattancherry[14], State of Jharkhand vs. Govind Singh50). A conjoint reading of Section 245(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, and the Rules made thereunder, would show that it is only the notice of the intention, to move a no-confidence motion, which is required to be supported by not less than one half of the members. The requirement of the resolution being passed, or the motion being carried out, is only if a majority of the members support the motion. If one half of the total number of members vote for the resolution of ‘no confidence’, and the other half vote against it, then the no confidence motion, where the total number of members are even, would not obviously be carried through. The legislature, in its wisdom, has chosen to prescribe ‘not less than one half of members’ as being required to give a written notice of the intention to move the motion of no-confidence. It is not as if the motion passed by ‘not less than one half members’ would be carried through in a meeting held for that purpose. I see no reason, even on a purposive interpretation being given to Section 245(1), to read the words ‘not less than’ as ‘more than’. Since this is the only contention urged in writ petition and, as this contention does not merit acceptance, the writ petition must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________ 19-12-2008 Asp [1] 2001(4) SCC 534 [2] 2003(1) SCC 692 [3] AIR 1990 SC 1747 [4] AIR 1966 SC 1678 [5] (1984 (2) SCC 500 [6] (2001)8 SCC 61 [7] (2003)5 SCC 134 [8] (2005)10 SCC 437 [9] (2003)2 SCC 455 [10] (2004)11 SCC 625 [11] (1986 (4) SCC 746 [12] AIR 1992 SC 96 [13] (2001)4SCC 139 [14] (2001)3 SCC 735