AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prem Chand Jain, J.—This judgment and order of mine would dispose of Civil writs Nos. 2551, 2604 and 2615 of 1972, as a common question of law arises in all these petitions.
By these petitions, the co-option of the private respondents made to the Panchayat Samitis under the Punjab Panchayat Samitis (Co-option of Members; Riles, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), in the meeting held for that purpose, has been challenged. The Panchayat Samiti in all these cases consists of 19 members. Co-option to all these Samitis was made of women and persons of the Scheduled Castes.
The sole contention in all these petitions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, was that the co-option was bad as it was made at a meeting which had no quorum in accordance with rule 4, sub-rule (I) of the Rules. The number of members who attended the meeting was 14. Thus the decision of the contention depends upon the interpretation of rule 4 which reads as under:
Quorum.
(1) Three-fourth Members shall constitute a quorum for the co-option of persons.
(2) If at the first meeting there be no quorum present as specified in sub-rule (I), the Presiding Officer shall adjourn the meeting.
(3) When a meeting is adjourned under sub rule (2) another meeting shall be convened by the Presiding Officer for the purpose of co-opting members by giving three days clear notice to the Primary Members.
(4) Not less than one-half of the number of Primary Members shall constitute a quorum for the second meeting.
Explanation.--Where a Panchayat Samiti consist of nineteen Primary Members, ten members will constitute quorum for the second meeting.
(5) If at the second meeting there be no quorum present as specified in sub rule (4), the Presiding Officer shall adjourn the meeting.
(6) When a meeting is adjourned under sub-rule (5), a third meeting shall be convened by the Presiding Officer, in the manner specified in sub-rule (3), for the purpose of co-opting Members.
(7) No quorum shall be necessary for the third meeting.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that under sub rule (1), the Legislature prescribed three-fourth members to constitute a quorum for the co-option of persons and thus in case of a Panchayat Samiti which had 19 members, the quorum should have been of 15 members. According to the learned counsel, the presence of 14 members would not make three-fourth of the total number of members as it would be short by a fraction of. 25. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the definition of word ''quorum'' as given in various books and also on two judicial pronouncements. In Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary the word ''quorum'' has been defined as ''the minimum number of members required to be present at an assembly before it can validly proceed to transact business''. In Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 62, under the heading ''Municipal Corporation'', at page 403, it is stated thus:
Where a required proportion or per cent of the vote of the governing body results in so many whole votes and a fraction, it is necessary to count the fraction as a whole vote, even though this results in a greater per cent of the whole body in such instance than would be the case if the body were equally divisible by said per cent into whole numbers.
The above mentioned quotation has been reproduced from a case Bonney et al. v. Smith et al. 147 Pacific Reporers, 2nd Series in page 771 decided by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, reported in 147 Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, at page 771 In Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 74, ''quorum'' has been defined thus:
The word "quorum", now in common use, is from the Latin, and has come to signify such a number of the officers or members of any body as is competent by law or constitution to transact business : such a number of an assembly as is competent to transact its business ; such a number of the members of any body as is, when dully assembled, legally competent to transact business ; such a number of a body as is competent to transact business in the absence of the other members. The quorum of a body is an absolute majority of it unless the authority by which the body was created fixes it at a different number. The idea of a "quorum" is that when that required number of persons goes into a session as a body the votes of a majority thereof are sufficient for binding action. Thus the word "quorum" implies a meeting, and the action must be group action, not merely action of a particular number of members as individuals.
Reference was also made to a Single Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Shyamapada Ganguly Vs. Abani Mohan Mukherjee, , wherein it has been observed thus:
The next question is as to whether the voting by 11 Comrs. was sufficient compliance with the requirements of section 61(2). In my view the answer must be in the negative. The section requires that not less than two-thirds of the whole number of the Comrs, must vote before a Chairman or a Vice-Chairman can be removed. The Section is mandatory. The number of votes must not be less than two-thirds in any event but it may be more. Two thirds of 17 is 11.1/3. Mr. Sanyal''s argument is that the fraction should be ignored and the next whole number below it should be accepted as the number Mr. Sanyal argued that as compliance is impossible in the nature of things and fraction of a person capable of voting is an impossibility the compliance should be dispensed with. In my view, however, the requirement of two-third majority in S. 61(2) is a condition precedent which must be fulfilled before the Corms. can derive power or jurisdiction to remove a chairman or a vice-chairman from office. I am clearly of the opinion that voting by 11 Comrs. was not sufficient compliance with the sanction, and the resolution for removal of the opposite party was ineffective and must be deemed to have been lost.
On the other hand, Mr. Lamba, learned Deputy Advocate General, had no quarrel with the definitions reproduced above nor did he challenge the correctness of the two decisions referred to above ; but his contention proceeded purely on the interpretation of rule 4. According to him, fraction of 25 had to be ignored as that was the intention of the Legislature and that in a Panchayat Samiti consisting of 19 members, 14 members would be sufficient to constitute three-fourth quorum. For his contention, the learned Deputy Advocate General sought support from the explanation added to sub rule (4) of rule 4. It was also contended by Mr. Lamba that if on a reasonable interpretation of a statute the intention of the Legislature could fairly be construed, than reference to the meaning in the dictionary was hardly permissible.
The point in these petitions, though ticklish on the face of it, is interesting. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I find that there is considerable force in the contentions raised by the learned Deputy Advocate General. There is no dispute with the proposition that the presence of the quorum as prescribed by the statute, is essential to validly conduct the business. Under sub-rule (I), the quorum has to be of three-fourth members, which comes to 14.25. It is definitely more thin 14 by a fraction of 25. The question that arises for consideration is whether fraction of 25 has to be counted as one whole number. The answer to the question, in my view, has to be in the negative. In this sub rule, unlike sub-rule (4), words ''not less than have not been used. There seems to be a purpose behind it. 1 he legislature has used words '' not less than'' in sub rule (4) and has also added an explanation stating that 10 members will constitute a quorum for the second meeting. It is evident that at the time of framing rule 4, the fact that the Samiti constituted of 19 members only, was present in the mind of the framers ; otherwise explanation to sub-rule (4) would not have been added ; a fortiori, therefore, it can reasonably be inferred that while fixing three-forth as the quorum in sub-rule (1), the framers purposely did nut add any explanation to permit the import of the fraction of 25 as one memoir. In sub-rule (1) the quorum was fixed for all meetings in the first instance, and, therefore, the quorum of 14 members was presumably considered sufficient and there was found no necessity of adding any explanation making the quorum 15 by counting the fraction of 25 as one whole member. If the intention of the Legislature had been to count even 25 as one member then it would have added an explanation in the similar terms as was added to sub rule (4), and would have said in sub-rule (1) that the quorum will not be less than three-forth.
In sub rule (4) the position was different as it was designed to apply to the second meeting after the quorum was found lacking in the first meeting ; therefore, the farmers while making the quorum of such a meeting not less than half, also added the explanation. The reason for so doing is obvious; while decreasing the quorum from three-fourth to one half, they presumably considered it necessary to add words ''net less than one half and also added the explanation. If fraction of 50 had not been allowed to be counted as one member, then the quorum would have been still more decreased The Legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to treat the fraction of 50 or above to be counted as one member. If it had so desired even in the case of sub-rule (1), where the fraction comes to 25, that the same was to be counted as one member, then it would have used the word ''not less than'' and would have added an explanation for clarification. I agree with Mr. Lamba, learned Deputy Advocate General that the explanation clearly shows intention of the Legislature to the effect that a fraction of 50 or above was to be treated as one member and any fraction less than that was to be ignored. In order to further highlighted the intention of the Legislature, Mr. Lamba also drew my attention to Article 55 which prescribes the manner of election of the President of India where in clause (c) it is provided that fraction exceeding one half is to be counted as one and other fractions below that are to be disregarded. This provision in Article 55 appears to have been present in the mind of the framers at the time of framing rule 4 and fully explains why the Legislature did not intend to treat fraction 25 as one member and why even in the case of fraction 50 for treatment as one member, it was found necessary to add explanation to sub-rule 4) The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Shyamapada Ganguly''s case, does rot help the petitioners, as in that case u/s 61(2) of the Bengal Municipal Act, the words used were ''not less than two thirds of the whole number''. The learned Judge based his decision on the words ''not less than two thirds'' as is evident from the relevant passage of the judgment reproduced in the earlier part of my judgment.
So far as the observations of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in Bonney''s case, are concerned, there is no doubt that some support is lent to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. But that case too would be of not much assistance as the decision of the case in hand proceeds on this interpretation of rule 4 as a whole. The only way in which harmonious interpretation of the entire rule can be achieved, is to hold that the Legislature did not intend to take into consideration a fraction of 25, under sub-rub (1) as one member and that the presence of 14 members under sub-rule (I) constituted a proper quorum. In this view of the matter the co-option made in the meeting held for that purpose in all these petitions, was quite legal.
No other point was urged.
For the reasons recorded above, these petitions fail and are dismissed. The stay granted by me in Civil Writ No. 2551 of 1972 shall stand vacated. In the circumstances of the case I make nO order as to costs.