Kuldip Singh, J. - (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) J. N. Kaul was elected president of Ziila Parishad, Lucknow on January 25, 1989. D. K. Anand and Nand Kishore Verma were nominated as members of the Zilla Parishad. On the date of its constitution the Zilla Parishad had total of 62 members. On August 17, 1990 56 members of the Zilla Parishad moved a no-confidence motion against the president under S. 28 of U. P. Kshetra Samitis and Zilla Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Adhiniyam). Section 28(11) of the Adhiniyam which is relevant is as under : "If the motion is carried with the support of more than half of the total number of members of the Zilla Parishad for the time being................." The meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence was held on September 14, 1990. 34 members were present at the meeting. 33 members including Anand and Verma voted in favour of the motion while one member voted against and as such the motion of no-confidence was carried out against the president. 2A. J. N. Kaul filed two writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court which were heard together. In the writ petitions Kaul challenged the proceedings of the meeting dated September 14, 1990 and also his removal from the office of the president. He further challenged the nomination of Anand and Verma on the ground that on the date of their nomination both of them were in Government service and as such were disqualified to be members of the Zilla Parishad, being holders of an office of profit. His challenge in the writ petition was based on the following grounds : (1) That the nomination of Anand and Verma as members of the Zilla Parishad was illegal as on the date of nomination they were Government servants and were holding "office of profit". (2) That the notice by the members intimating their intention to move the motion of no-confidence was illegal as Anand and Verma who were disqualified to hold the office of member of Zilla Parishad, had signed the said notice. (3) That the meeting dated September 14, 1990 was in violation of mandatory provisions of the Adhiniyam as the requisite clear notice of 15 days was not served upon the members nor the notice was published by affixing the same on the notice board of the Parishad. (4) That the participation of Anand and Verma in the deliberation of the meeting dated September 14, 1990 vitiates the entire proceedings of the meeting. (5) That the required "more than half of the total number of members of the Zilla Parishad for the time being" did not vote in favour of the motion. The High Court by a reasoned judgment partly allowed the petitions and set aside the nominations of Anand and Verma, holding the same to be illegal. All other contentions raised before it on behalf of Kaul were rejected. This appeal via special leave petition is against the judgment of the High Court.
(3.) We have heard Mr. Satish Chandra, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court. We do not find any infirmity in the same. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court. Mr. Satish Chandra, taking support from Bhaiya Lal vs. P. N. Tiwari, 1970 All LJ 36 has assailed the finding of the High Court on the point that the motion of no confidence was not supported by more than half of the total number of members of the Zilla Parishad for the time being. The relevant part of the High Court judgment, under appeal, is as under :- "We have the report of the Presiding Officer, Sri Sushil Kumar Srivastava, as Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit of the Collector, Lucknow. The report is quite revealing. The report shows that in all 34 members of the Parishad were present. After deliberations 32 members voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence and one member voted against the motion of no-confidence. The remaining vote of the 34th member was debated because the mark made by the voter was not made in the column meant for "yes". Initially the Presiding Officer was of the view that the vote was invalid but when the Assistant Election Officer informed the Presiding Officer that it was not explained to the members as to at what place the mark was to be placed by the voter, the Presiding Officer was of the view that since the mark was above the column meant for "yes" the vote was valid and was cast in favour of the motion of no-confidence. Thus, a total of 33 members voted for the motion of no-confidence when the total strength at that time was 62. It was not disputed that both opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 voted for the motion of no-confidence. We have already held that they were not lawful members of the Parishad and, as such, their names are to be ignored. If we ignore these two members, then the total strength of the members of the Parishad for the time being comes to 60 and if these two names are also excluded from the number of members, who voted for the action of no-confidence, the number of such members who voted for the motion of no-confidence, comes to 31. Thus, 31 members voted for the action of no-confidence out of total strength of 60 members. The conclusion was irresistible that the motion of no-confidence was carried out by more than half of the total number of members of the Zilla Parishad for the time being." ;