RAMESH MEHTA versus SANWAL CHAND SINGHVI AND ORS.

RAMESH MEHTA versus SANWAL CHAND SINGHVI AND ORS.

Nominated members, who have no right to vote after amendments pursuant to the 74th Constitutional Amendment, are not to be included in the calculation of 'whole number of members' for determining the majority in a no-confidence motion against Chairman/Vice-Chairman of a Municipal Board. Only elected members and members entitled to vote are counted.

Parties
Appellant: Ramesh Mehta; Respondent: Sanwal Chand Singhvi; Respondent: State Government of Rajasthan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
No Confidence Motion, Municipal Board Membership, Statutory Interpretation, Delegated Legislation
Municipal Law Constitutional Law No Confidence Motion Municipal Board Membership Statutory Interpretation Delegated Legislation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh Mehta

Appellant

Sanwal Chand Singhvi

Respondent

State Government of Rajasthan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether nominated members should be included in 'whole number of members' when counting majority for no-confidence motions against Chairperson/Vice-Chairperson under Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and relevant Rules

Ratio Decidendi

Nominated members, who have no right to vote after amendments pursuant to the 74th Constitutional Amendment, are not to be included in the calculation of 'whole number of members' for determining the majority in a no-confidence motion against Chairman/Vice-Chairman of a Municipal Board. Only elected members and members entitled to vote are counted.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed; Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court's decision is affirmed.