1993 (5) TMI 192 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the no-confidence motion.
2. Interpretation of "majority of more than one-half" under Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act.
3. Legislative intent and historical amendments to Section 87-A.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the no-confidence motion:

The petitioner challenged the resolution dated 22nd December 1990, which passed a no-confidence motion against him as the elected President of the Municipal Board, Khatima, district Nainital. The core argument was that the no-confidence motion did not meet the legal requirement of being passed by a majority of more than one-half of the total number of Board members as stipulated under Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act.

2. Interpretation of "majority of more than one-half" under Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act:

The petitioner's argument was based on the interpretation that the motion required a majority of more than one-half of the total 15 members of the Board, which should be rounded to nine members. The Division Bench referred to previous conflicting judgments on this interpretation:
- In Mangala Prasad Jaiswal v. District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, a Full Bench held that the quorum necessary for passing a motion of no confidence is the total number of members, not just those present. Thus, more than half of 15 members would be nine.
- In Ganesh Prasad Chaturvedi v. District Magistrate, Jalaun, it was held that the words "more than half" were redundant, and a simple majority would suffice. The Division Bench disagreed with this view, emphasizing that the legislature intentionally used "more than half" to mean a majority exceeding half of the total members.

The Court reviewed the legislative history and amendments to Section 87-A, noting that the legislature consistently used "majority" qualified by "more than one-half" or "two-thirds" in various contexts. This indicated a deliberate legislative intent to specify the majority required for such motions.

3. Legislative intent and historical amendments to Section 87-A:

The Court examined the historical amendments to Section 87-A, which oscillated between requiring a "majority of more than one-half" and a "majority of two-thirds". The repeated use of these terms was not redundant but deliberate to specify the required majority. The Court cited several legal definitions of "majority" and concluded that it means any number greater than half of the total, not necessarily rounded figures.

The Court held that in the context of a Board with 15 members, eight votes constitute a majority of more than one-half. Thus, the no-confidence motion passed with eight votes was valid.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the no-confidence motion against the petitioner was validly passed by a majority of more than one-half of the total members of the Board. The Court emphasized that legislative terms like "more than one-half" are deliberate and not redundant, and should be interpreted to reflect the legislature's intent. The judgment clarified that in a Board of 15 members, eight votes are sufficient to pass a no-confidence motion, aligning with the legislative requirement of a majority of more than one-half.