Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the no confidence motion against the president of the Zilla Parishad, elected on January 25, 1989. Following the motion initiated by 56 members on August 17, 1990, a meeting was held on September 14, 1990, where 34 members attended, and 33 voted in favor of the motion. The appellant challenged the validity of the motion and the nominations of two members, claiming they were disqualified due to holding an office of profit. The High Court partly upheld the challenge, invalidating the nominations but concluded that the motion was validly carried. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the interpretation of 'for the time being' in Section 28(11) should consider the total membership at the time of the Zilla Parishad's constitution, not at the time of the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that 'for the time being' refers to the actual membership at the time of the motion, thus validating the no confidence motion as it received the support of more than half of the members present. The court overruled the previous interpretation in Bhaiya Lal v. P.N. Tiwari, emphasizing the plain meaning of the statutory language. The appeal was dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - No Confidence Motion - Validity of Motion - U.P. Kehhetra Samiti and Zilla Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961, Section 28(11) - The phrase 'for the time being' refers to the actual membership on the date of the motion, not the constitution date. The court held that the motion was validly carried as it was supported by more than half of the existing members at the time of the vote (Paras 646-648).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the no confidence motion against the president of the Zilla Parishad was validly carried out under Section 28(11) of the U.P. Kehhetra Samiti and Zilla Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the no confidence motion was validly carried out as it was supported by more than half of the existing members at the time of the vote.
Law Points
- Interpretation of statutory provisions
- no confidence motion
- membership validity
- office of profit
- legal standing of nominated members
