JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.- Special leave granted.

2. J.N. Kaul was elected president of Zila Parishad, Lucknow on January 25, 1989. D.K. Anand and Nand Kishore Verma were nominated as members of the Zila Parishad. On the date of its constitution the Zila Parishad had a total of 62 members. On August 17, 1990, 56 members of the Zila Parishad moved a no-confidence motion against the president under Section 28 of U.P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Adhiniyam). Section 28(11) of the Adhiniyam which is relevant is as under:

"If the motion is carried with the support of more than half of the total number of members of the Zila Parishad for the time being ...."

The meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence was held on September 14, 1990. Thirty-four members were present at the meeting. Thirty-three members including Anand and Verma voted in favour of the motion while one member voted against and as such the motion of no-confidence was carried out against the president.

3. J.N. Kaul filed two writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court which were heard together. In the writ petitions Kaul challenged the proceedings of the meeting dated September 14, 1990 and also his removal from the office of the president. He further challenged the nomination of Anand and Verma on the ground that on the date of their nomination both of them were in government service and as such were disqualified to be members of the Zila Parishad, being holders of an office of profit. His challenge in the writ petition was based on the following grounds:

(1) That the nomination of Anand and Verma as members of the Zila Parishad was illegal as on the date of nomination they were government servants and were holding office of profit.

(2) That the notice by the members intimating their intention to move the motion of no-confidence was illegal as Anand and Verma who were disqualified to hold the office of member of Zila Parishad, had signed the said notice.

(3) That the meeting dated September 14, 1990 was in violation of mandatory provisions of the Adhiniyam as the requisite clear notice of 15 days was not served upon the members nor the notice was published by affixing the same on the notice-board of the Parishad.

(4) That the participation of Anand and Verma in the deliberation of the meeting dated September 14, 1990 vitiates the entire proceedings of the meeting.

(5) That the required "more than half of the total number of members of the Zila Parishad for the time being" did not vote in favour of the motion.

The High Court by a reasoned judgment partly allowed the petitions and set aside the nominations of Anand and Verma holding the same to be illegal. All other contentions raised before it on behalf of Kaul were rejected. This appeal via special leave petition is against the judgment of the High Court.

4. We have heard Mr Satish Chandra, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court. We do not find any infirmity in the same. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court. Mr Satish Chandra, taking support from Bhaiya Lal v. P.N. Tewari{1970 All LJ 36} has assailed the finding of the High Court on the point that the motion of no confidence was not supported by more than half of the total number of members of the Zila Parishad for the time being. The relevant part of the High Court judgment, under appeal, is as under:

"We have the report of the Presiding Officer, Shri Sushil Kumar Srivastava, as Annexure 3 to the counter-affidavit of the Collector, Lucknow. The report is quite revealing. The report shows that in all 34 members of the Parishad were present. After deliberations 32 members voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence and one member voted against the motion of no-confidence. The remaining vote of the 34th member was debated because the mark made by the voter was not made in the column meant for yes. Initially the Pres