GANESH SUKHDEO GURULE versus TAHSILDAR SINNAR & ORS.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 914, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
914                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
GANESH SUKHDEO GURULE
v.
TAHSILDAR SINNAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11916 of 2018)
DECEMBER 10, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN AND
S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 – s.35(3) –
Majority for holding no- confidence motion – Computation of –
Respondents moved a no-confidence motion against the appellant
– Special meeting of Gram Panchayat for consideration of no-
confidence motion was held and out of 9 members of the Gram
Panchayat only 8 members were present in the meeting – 6 members
voted in favour of the motion and 2 members opposed to it – 1
member who voted in favour of no-confidence motion was not
qualified to vote, so only 5 valid votes were voted in favour of no-
confidence motion – No confidence motion was passed – A dispute
application under 35(3-B) of the Maharashtra Gram Panchayat
Rules, 1958 challenging the no-confidence motion passed was filed
– Addl. Collector held that no-confidence motion was validly passed
– Writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed – On appeal,
held:  s.35(3) of the Act refers to majority as “a majority of not less
than two-third of the total number of the members who are for the
time being entitled to sit and vote” – In instant case, total number of
members being 9 and 1 member being disqualified to sit and vote,
the computation of majority has to be on the basis of number 8,
two-third of the number 8 will be 5.33
– Furthermore, the words
‘not less than’ used in s.35(3) of the Act has to be given meaning
and purpose – When majority comes to 5.33 votes “not less than
5.33” have to be given meaning, hence, 5.33 can never be rounded
off to 5, fraction has to be treated as one because votes cannot be
treated as fraction – Hence, 5.33 votes to be read as 6 votes for
passing of the motion as mandated by s.35(3) – Thus, no-confidence
motion was not validly passed and the order of the Addl. Collector
as well as the High Court were erroneous – Maharashtra Gram
Panchayat Rules, 1958 – r.35(3-B).
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 914
914
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
915
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, Section 35(3) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 refers to majority as
“a majority of not less than two-third of the total number of the
members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at
any meeting of the Panchayat”. The above expression clearly
indicates the majority of not less than  two-third of the “total
number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit
and vote”. The key words in the expression are members who
are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at a meeting in the
Panchayat. The computation of majority thus refers to “entitlement
to sit and vote at any meeting”. Thus, the number of members
who are entitled to sit and vote in a meeting have to be taken
into consideration for computing the majority. Total number of
members being nine and one member being disqualified to sit
and vote, the computation of majority has to be on the basis of
number eight,  two-third of the number eight will be 5.33.
[Para 9][918-G-H; 919-A]
2. In so far as vote of one disqualified member, the same
can neither be computed for the no-confidence motion nor is
relevant for computing two-third majority as per the statutory
scheme. The words ‘not less than’ used in Section 35(3) of the
Act has to be given meaning and purpose. When majority comes
to 5.33 votes “not less than 5.33 votes” have to be given meaning,
hence, 5.33 can never be rounded off to 5, fraction
has to be
treated as one because votes cannot be treated as fraction. Hence,
5.33 votes to be read as 6 votes for passing of the motion as
mandated by Section 35(3). [Para 17][923-E-F]
3. Thus, no-confidence motion was not validly passed and
the order of the Addl. Collector as well as of the High Court are
erroneous. It is held that motion of no-confidence was not passed
against the appellant since it was not passed by two-third of the
total number of the members who were for the time being entitled
to sit and vote. [Para 18][923-F-G]
State of U.P. and another v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and
others, (2005) 2 SCC 10 : [2005] 1 SCR 21 – referred
to.
Jayram v. Secretary, U.D.D. Mumbai, 2010 (3) MH.
LJ 465 ; Anant v. Chief Election Commissioner 2017
(1) Mh.L.J. 431 - referred to.
GANESH SUKHDEO GURULE v. TAHSILDAR SINNAR & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
916                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2005] 1 SCR 21
referred to
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11916
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 12185 of 2018.
Ms. Deeplaxmi S. Matwankar and Ravindra Sadanand Chingale,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Sachin Patil and Kailas Bajirao Autade, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.11.2018
of the High Court of Bombay dismissing the writ petition filed by the
appellant.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
counsel for the respondent No.4 who has appeared on caveat. The interest
of respondent No.4 and other private respondents being common we
have not issued notice to other respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the appeal
are:
On 07.09.2018, respondents moved a no-confidence motion
against the appellant. Tahsildar issued notice dated 07.09.2018 convening
special meeting of Gram Panchayat for consideration of no-confidence
motion on 14.09.2018. On 14.09.2018 out of nine members of the Gram
Panchayat  only eight members were present in the meeting. Six members
voted in favour of the motion and two members were opposed to it. One
of the members who voted in favour of no-confidence motion was not
qualified to vote,
namely,  Smt. Sushila Prakash Darade who had not
filed her caste certificate after election, hence, she was disqualified to
continue to be a member or to vote in any meeting. A Dispute Application
under  35(3-B) of the Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Rules, 1958
challenging the no-confidence motion passed was filed. The Addl.
Collector, Nasik passed an order dated 16.10.2018 approving the special
meeting dated 14.09.2018 holding that no-confidence motion was validly
passed. Against the order passed by the Addl. Collector, a writ petition
was filed by the appellant which has been dismissed by the High Court
by the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court
this appeal has been filed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
917
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that total members
of Gram Panchayat being nine and one member being disqualified to
vote the two-third majority has to be computed on the basis of eight
members which comes to 5.33 and there being only five valid votes in
favour of  no-confidence motion, motion cannot be held to be passed.
One of the members who voted in favour of no-confidence motion i.e.
Smt. Sushila Prakash Darade being disqualified to sit and vote cannot be
counted in favour of no-confidence motion, two-third majority being 5.33,
at least six votes were required for passing the no-confidence motion. It
is submitted that caste certificate being not submitted by Smt. Sushila
Prakash Darade within six months as required by law she automatically
became disqualified to sit or vote in the meeting of Gram Panchayat.
5. The submissions made by the counsel of the appellant were
refuted by the counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that there
being only eight members present and one being disqualified, two-third
majority shall be computed from seven and five votes caste in favour of
the no-confidence motion, the motion shall be treated to be validly passed.
It is contended that provision of Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayats Act, 1959 has to be read to mean that majority of not less
than two-third of total number of members present and voting, thus,
there being only 8 members present, majority is to be computed from 7
excluding
one disqualified member. He submits that motion of no-
confidence was validly passed against the appellant and rightly upheld
by the High Court.
6. Learned counsel for the parties relied on few judgments which
shall be referred to while considering the submissions.
7. Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act deals
with motion of no-confidence. Section 35(1) and Section 35(3) which
are relevant for the present case are as follows:
“35. Motion of no confidence. - (1) A motion of no confidence
may be moved by not less than [one third] of the total number of
the members  who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at
any meeting of the panchayat against the Sarpanchor the Upa-
Sarpanch after giving such notice thereof to the Tahsildar as may
be prescribed. [Such notice once given shall not be withdrawn.
Xxx
xxx
xxx
(3) If the motion is carried by  a majority of not less than two-
third of the total number of the members  who are for the time
GANESH SUKHDEO GURULE v. TAHSILDAR SINNAR & ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
918                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the panchayat or
the Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, [shall forthwith stop
exercising all the powers and perform all the functions and duties
of the office and thereupon such powers, functions and duties
shall vest in the Upa-Sarpanch in case the motion is carried out
against the Sarpanch; and in case the motion is carried out against
both the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, in such officer, not below
the rank of Extension Officer, as may be authorised by the Block
Development Officer, till the dispute, if any, referred to under
sub-section (3B) is decided:”
8. The main issue which arises for consideration is that what shall
be two-third majority for holding the no-confidence motion to be passed
in the Panchayat in the facts of the present case. Admittedly there are
nine members in the Village Panchayat. Out of nine members in the
meeting held on 14.09.2018, eight members were present. Out of eight
members present, one member was disqualified to sit and vote by virtue
of she having not submitted her caste certificate after the election. She
was one out of six members who have voted in favour of  no-confidence
motion. There are five valid votes in favour of  no-confidence motion as
two against it. The statute provides for special majority for passing a
motion. The Shackleton on the “Law and Practice of Meetings” in
paragraph 7.32 while dealing
with special majority states:
“In cases where special majorities are prescribed, the provisions
of the relevant statute or rules or rules must be carefully observed.
Thus, where under an old Act a motion was to be “determined by
a majority consisting of two-thirds of the votes of the ratepayers
present” at a meeting, and 37 were present, the votes of 20
ratepayers in favour of the motion (the remainder abstaining) were
deemed to be insufficient to comply with the statute.”
9. In the present case statute, Section 35(3) refers to majority as
“a majority of not not less than two-third of the total number of the
members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting
of the Panchayat”. The above expression clearly indicates the majority
of not less than  two-third of the “total number of the members who are
for the time being entitled to sit and vote”. The key words in the expression
are members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at a
meeting in the Panchayat. The computation of majority thus refers to
“entitlement to sit and vote at any meeting”. Thus, the number of members
who are entitled to sit and vote in a meeting have to be taken into
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
919
consideration for computing the majority. Total number of members being
nine and one member being disqualified to sit and vote, the computation
of majority has to be on the basis of number eight,  two-third of the
number eight will be 5.33. The Submission of the respondent is that the
two-third majority has to be computed out of the members present and
voting i.e. seven excluding one member who was unqualified to vote
and five is more than  two-third of seven, the majority has been rightly
passed. The interpretation put by the learned counsel for the respondent
cannot be accepted in view of the clear language of statute. The crucial
words in the statute are members “who are for the time being entitled to
sit and vote”. This, expression cannot be treated to be expression
members present and voting. The submission of the respondent that for
computation of majority number of seven members should be treated,
cannot be accepted.
10. The next submission pressed by the respondent is that for
applying the principle of rounding off 5.33 votes have to be rounded as
to five. Thus, five votes are sufficient to accept majority for the purpose
of passing no-confidence motion. Whether 5.33 votes can be rounded
up into 5 votes or requirement is at lest six votes is the real issue. When
there are  clear words in the statute i.e. “not less two-third of the total
number of members” applying the principle of rounding off, 5.33 vote
cannot be treated as 5. Vote of a person
cannot be expressed in fraction.
When computation of a majority comes with fraction of a vote that fraction
has to be treated as one vote, because votes cannot be expressed in
fraction. The principle that figure less than .5 is to be ignored and figure
more than .5 shall be treated as one, is  not  applicable in the statutory
scheme as delineated by Section 35. Provision of Section 35(1) which
provides for requirement for moving motion of no-confidence by not
less than one-third of the total number of the members who are for the
time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchayat, is the
same expression as used in sub-section (3). Obviously, requirement of
not less than one-third number for moving motion has to be computed
from total number of the members who are entitled to sit and vote. Thus,
the same expression having been used in sub-section (3) of Section 35
both the expressions have to be given the same meaning. Thus, one-
third of total number of members who are entitled to sit and vote have to
be determined on the strength of members entitled to vote at a particular
time. The same meaning has also to be applied while computing two-
third majority.
GANESH SUKHDEO GURULE v. TAHSILDAR SINNAR & ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
920                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on two
judgments, one, of this Court in State of U.P. and another vs. Pawan
Kumar Tiwari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 10. In the above case, this
Court was considering applicability of percentage of reservation in the
context of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Casts,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. The
percentage prescribed for the reservation category in the State of U.P.
noticed in paragraph 2 of the judgment. Respondent belonging to general
category was at the top of the waiting list. He filed a writ petition directing
the State to issue a letter of appointment to the respondent. The High
Court held that 50 % of general category which was 46.50 ought to
have been treated as 47. The High Court had allowed the writ petition
and held the respondent entitled for appointment as 47th general category
candidate. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed  by this Court.
Paragraph 2,6 and 7 of the judgment are as follows:
“2. The percentages of reservation, as applicable and as was
actually applied, are set out in the following table:
6. The High Court has found mainly two faults with the process
adopted by the State Government. First, the figure of 46.50 should
have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46; and secondly, in the
category of freedom fighters and ex-servicemen, total 3 posts
have been
earmarked as horizontally reserved by inserting such
reservation into general quota of 46 posts which had the effect of
pushing out of selection zone three candidates from merit list of
general category.
7. We do not find fault with any of the two reasonings adopted by
the High Court. The rule of rounding off based on logic and
common sense is: if part is one-half or more, its value shall be
increased to one and if part is less than half then its value shall be
Category
Percentage
(prescribed) 
Percentage 
worked out to 
Number of 
posts 
reserved 
General 
50% 
46.50 
46 
Scheduled 
Castes 
21% 
19.53 
20 
Other 
Backward 
Classes 
27%
25.11
26
Scheduled 
Tribes 
2%
1.86
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
921
ignored. 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46
as has been done. If 47 candidates would have been considered
for selection in general category, the respondent was sure to find
a place in the list of selected meritorious candidates and hence
entitled to appointment. ”
12. The judgment of this Court in the above case was on  rounding
off the vacancies. The reserved post being 50% of the total number of
posts reservation in no manner can exceed 50%. In the facts of aforesaid
case, there were total 93 posts, 47 was  treated more than 50%. Hence,
the post for general category which was 46.50 was rounded off to 47 by
the High Court which was approved by this Court. The said case related
to computation of vacancies for particular category as per 1994 Act
which principle cannot be applied in computation of a special majority as
required by the statute in question.
13. Another judgment is a Full Bench judgment in Jayram vs.
Secretary, U.D.D. Mumbai, 2010 (3) MH. LJ 465, which is relied
by learned counsel for the respondent, by referring to the judgment of
this Court in Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra) the Full Bench of Bombay
High Court held that there is no justification that  fraction below 0.5 be
ignored in allotting the seats to registered or recognised parties on the
basis of groups as per statutory scheme delineated by Bombay Provincial
Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. Referring to the judgment of this Court
in Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra) in
paragraph 31, the Full Bench of
Bombay High Court has rightly held that rounding off was not the ratio
or principle on which Pawan Kumar Tiwari case was decided.
Paragraph 31 of the judgment is quoted below:
“31. Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel vehementaly contended
that rule of rounding off is now well recognised and is based upon
the logic and common sense. For this he relied upon State of U.P.
vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari, (2005) 2 SCC 10. In that case, 93 posts
of Civil Judges, J.D. were advertised and 50% of the posts were
reserved for different categories and 50% were for the general
or open category. In view of this percentage 46.50 seats would
be available for reserved category and 46.50 for general category.
The State Government rounded off the number of posts available
for general category at 46 and for the reserved category at 47.
The High Court found fault with the process and held that the
number of posts available for general category could not be
rounded off at 46, but should have been rounded off at 47. The
GANESH SUKHDEO GURULE v. TAHSILDAR SINNAR & ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
922                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the State Government
and held that if the seats for reserved category are fixed at 47, it
would cross the limit of 50% and therefore it could not be upheld
and as such number of posts available for reserved category could
be fixed at 46 and that for general category should have been
fixed at 47. Their Lordships observed as follows in para 9:-
“9. There is yet another reason why the judgment of the High
Court has to be maintained. The total number of vacancies
was 93. Consequent upon the allocation of reservation and
calculation done by the appellants, the number of reserved seats
would be 47, leaving only 46 available for general category
candidates. Meaning thereby, the reservation would exceed
50% which would be unconstitutional. The total number of
reserved seats could not have been more than 46 out of 93. ”
In fact, in this case, both the groups had 46.5 and if the same
formula would be applied, then in each case .50 could have been
rounded off to 1 and each of the group would be entitled to 47
seats. In that case, the total number would become 94, while the
total vacancies available were only 93. Thus, rounding off is not
the ratio or principle on which that case was decided. It was
decided mainly on the question as to whether reserved categories
may get seats more than 50% quota. Therefore the authority in
Pawan Kumar Tiwari’s case could not be
used in support of the
view taken in Vasant Gite.”
14. Further, in paragraph 34 Full Bench of Bombay High Court
itself held that there is no justification to ignore fraction below 0.5 in the
context of allocation of registered or recognised parties or groups who
are entitled to number of seats. The above judgment of the Bombay
High Court in no manner supports the case of respondent rather supports
the appellant’s contention.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant in so far as disqualification
of one of the members who had not filed her caste certificate relied on
Anant vs. Chief Election Commissioner, 2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431,
before the Full Bench the issue was raised as to whether on non-
submission of caste certificate within six months period disqualification
is automatic. Answering the reference Full Bench held that the provision
for requiring submission of caste certificate within a period of six months
for election is mandatory and disqualification would be automatic. In
paragraph 100 of the judgment the Full Bench held the following :
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
923
“100. In the result, we hold that the time limit of six months
prescribed in the two provisos to Section 9A of the said Act, within
which an elected person is required to produce the Validity
Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee is mandatory.
Further, in terms of second proviso to Section 9A if a person
fails to produce Validity Certificate within a period of six months
from the date on which he is elected, his election shall be deemed
to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified
for being a Councillor.
Such retrospective termination of his election and
disqualification for being a Councillor would be automatic and
validation of his caste claim after the stipulated period would not
result in restoration of his election.
The questions raised, stand answered accordingly. ”
16. It is further relevant to note that this Court in Special Leave
Petition (C)Nos. 29874-29875 of 2016 (Shankar s/o Raghunath Devre
(Patil) vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) has approved the view taken
by the Full Bench vide its judgment dated 23.08.2018 by holding that the
requirement of submitting caste certificate is mandatory.
17. Thus, in so far as vote of one member, Smt. Sushila Prakash
Darade, the same can neither be computed for the no-confidence motion
nor is relevant for computing two-third majority as per the statutory
scheme. The words ‘not less than’ used in Section 35(3) of the Act has
to be given meaning and purpose. When majority comes to 5.33
votes
“not less than 5.33 votes” have to be given meaning, hence, 5.33 can
never be rounded off to 5, fraction has to be treated as one because
votes cannot be treated as fraction. Hence, 5.33 votes to be read as 6
votes for passing of the motion as mandated by Section 35(3).
18. We are, thus, of the view that no-confidence motion was not
validly passed and the order of the Addl. Collector as well as of the High
Court are erroneous. It is held that motion of no-confidence was not
passed against the appellant since it was not passed by two-third of the
total number of the members who were for the time being entitled to sit
and vote. The proceedings dated 14.09.2018, order of the Addl. Collector
approving the proceedings as well as the judgment of the High Court
dismissing the writ petition are set aside. The appeal is allowed
accordingly.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal allowed.
GANESH SUKHDEO GURULE v. TAHSILDAR SINNAR & ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]