Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)State Of U.P. & Anr vs Pawan Kumar Tiwari & Ors on 4 January, 2005
6. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in State of
U.P. and another Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others
reported in (2005)2 SCC 10 it has been submitted by Mr. Phukan
that under the rule of rounding off, if part is one-half or more, its
value has to be increased to one and if part is less than half then
its value has to be ignored. According to the learned counsel, in
the case in hand, since 2/3rd of 8 constitute 5.33, the fraction .33
has to be ignored, the same being less than 5.
Smt. Meena Devi vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 September, 2010
15. A Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Smt.
Meera Devi (supra) has also taken the similar view as has been
taken by a Single Bench of this Court in Jiten Saikia‟s case.
While interpreting the provisions contained in Section 14(1) of
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, which provides for removal of Pradhan
from its office by adopting the motion of no confidence by a
majority of 2/3rd of the members present and voting, it has been
held that by applying the principle of rounding off any remainder
cannot be ignored, while ascertaining the requisite majority of
2/3rd.
Ashok Maniklal Harkut vs The Collector Of Amravati And Anr. on 14 October, 1987
In Ashok Maniklal Harkut (supra) a Full Bench of
Bombay High Court while interpreting the expression "not less
than", occurring in Section 55 of Maharashtra Municipal Act has
held that if a fraction is ignored then the majority will be less than
the requisite number of councilors required to pass a motion of
confidence against the President of the Municipal Council. It has
also been held in the said judgment that if such fraction is
ignored, it would be against the provisions of Section 55 of the
said Act.
Jardar Khan vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 9 February, 1998
14. Sub-Section (1) of Section 43 of 1994 Act in clear
terms has stipulated that the President and the Vice President of
the Anchalik Panchayat can be removed from the office on
expressing want of confidence only if a resolution in that respect
is adopted by a majority of 2/3rd of the total number of directly
elected members. A Single Bench of this Court in Jiten Saikia
(supra) placing reliance on the provisions of Section 43(1) of the
Act as well as a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Jardar Khan Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in AIR
1998 Punjab & Haryana 249 has held that any fraction,
howsoever small may be, cannot be ignored while computing 2/3rd
majority of the total members and such fraction should be read as
one and consequently the result and number would be the next
WP(C) 4815/2010, 5596/2010 Page 13 of 20
higher integer. It has also been held that such fraction would
represent the corresponding opinion essential for comprising the
required majority for unseating the President or the Vice President
and thus cannot be ignored.
The U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947
The U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916
Wahid Ullah Khan vs District Magistrate, Nainital And ... on 20 May, 1993
20. A full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Wahid Ullah
Khan (supra), on which Mr. Phukan, learned counsel has also
placed reliance, has held that rounding of a figure is only where
particular figure has to be arrived at. It has further been held that
when majority could be any number, which is more than half,
then any number which could be said to be more than half would
be a majority number. In the said case the issue was whether
under the provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act, which requires
adoption of no confidence motion against the President of a
Municipality by majority of more than half of the members, any
resolution adopted by 8 out of 15 members would be inconformity
with the provisions of the said Act or "majority of more than half"
Section 55 in Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
1