Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. Section 157(13) also is to be read at this context. Only in case the motion is not carried, by majority of votes, there is embargo in giving notice for a minimum period of six months. A motion is defeated, where there is no support of majority. That cannot be the case he;re. No person has been invested with authority to declare that if a motion has, as the matter of fact, been carried, it is not carried. Such a declaration has to be inconsequential. The Act does not deal with the procedure for declaration, but only speaks of the 'result of the voting' to be communicated to the Government. The result has to be with reference only to the recorded vote. This position, according to me, concludes the issue. The authorised officer is not an Arbitrator. He presides over the meeting, but has not been invested with any power to arbiter, and to use the common parlour expression, he is acting as a post office. A no confidence motion is carried or defeated depending on the votes polled for or against the motion. Therefore, the issue of declaring him as a functus officio, does not really arise. He is not expected to adjudicate, and hence he cannot decide. The decision making body is the members, and exclusively depending on the voting pattern, the result has to be understood. The whole principle of functus officio, according to me, pertains to a situation, where a person had been invested with a power to act or adjudicate and he had consequently discharged his duties as per the authorisation given to him. By the very absence of a decision making jurisdiction, the principle can have no application here. The person should have performed his duty, or office or should have fulfilled the function, or should have accomplished the purpose for which he stood deputed. The first respondent was more of an observer, and therefore could not have transposed himself to a decision maker by any stretch of imagination.