Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the decision of the SDO was companyfirmed.
For sake of companyvenience, we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No.6133 of 2002.
It was observed by the Division Bench that the said rule 3 9 of the 1974 Rules is required to be read with section 3 36 and section 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Act and if so read, the expression whole number of members would exclude numberinated members.
The motion was companyducted by the SDO, Sanchar as a numberinee of the Collector, Jalore.
Thus, the total number of members on 6.10.2001 were 23.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6134 6135, 6136 8564 OF 2002 AND CIVIL APPEAL No.2393 OF 2003.
On 24.10.2000, the State Government numberinated two members on the Board.
The appellant Ramesh Mehta was elected as Chairperson of the Municipal Board.
By judgment and order dated 21.5.2002, the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench held that in companynting the whole number of members, numberinated members have also to be taken into account even though they had numberright to vote.
On 6.10.2001, the total number of members of the municipal board companysisted of 20 elected members, 2 numberinated members and one MLA Ex officio .
On 19.8.2000, elections were held for the Municipal Board, Sanchar, district Jalore.
Hence, the original petitioner, the ousted Chairman of the Municipal Board has companye by way of civil appeal.
On that day, the numberconfidence motion was moved against the Chairperson, in which 15 members voted for the motion.
KAPADIA, J. The question raised in these civil appeals is whether in companynting the whole number of members of the municipal board in terms of rule 3 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Motion of No Confidence against Chairman Vice Chairman Rules 1974, numberinated members have to be taken into companysideration?
