The main legal principle established was that the calculation of the requisite majority for passing a resolution expressing want of confidence in the President or Vice-President had to be based on the total number of councillors prescribed for the municipality, in accordance with the legislative intent to provide security of tenure.

ORDER :- The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the number of Councillors required for the resolution expressing want of confidence in a President or Vice-President of a Municipal Council by which, they stand removed from their respective offices under S. 42 (9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is two-thirds of the actual number of Councillors or two-thirds of the total number of Councillors prescribed under S. 11 of the Act

2. The petitioners in this writ petition are six Municipal Councillors of the Davangere City Municipal Council which is functioning under the provisions of the Act.

3. It is not disputed that number of Councillors of Davangere City Municipal Council fixed under S. 11 of the Act, is 35. It is also not disputed that out of 35 Councillors elected, one councillor died and another ceased to be a councillor and consequently, there are only 33 Councillors. Two resolutions dated 19-1-1978 (Exhibits A and B) expressing want of confidence in the President and the Vice-President were passed by a majority of 22 councillors out of 33 as against 11 councillors opposing the resolutions. Respondent No. 6 was the President and respondent No. 6 was the Vice-President of the Davangere City Municipal Council.

4. The case of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the passing of resolutions expressing want of confidence in respondents Nos. 5 and 6, they are continuing in the office of the President and Vice-President respectively,

though they must be deemed to have vacated the offices in view of S. 42 (9) of the Act.

5. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 that as the resolutions were passed by less than two-thirds of the total number of councillors, those resolutions are invalid and therefore they are not obliged to vacate their offices.

6. S. 42 (9) of the Act prescribes the procedure for removing President or Vice-President as the case may be by passing resolution expressing want of confidence. The said Section reads as follows:

"Every President and every Vice-President of a Municipal Council shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of councillors at a special general meeting convened for the purpose: Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-third of the total number of councillors and at least ten days' notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution;

Provided further that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any President or Vice-President has been considered and negatived by a Municipal Council, a similar resolution in respect of the same President or Vice-President shall not be given notice of or moved within one year from the date of the decision of the Municipal Council."

7. As can be seen from the first proviso to sub-sec. (9) of S. 42 of the Act, before passing a resolution expressing want of confidence in any President or Vice-President, a notice in writing signed by not less than one-third of the total number of councillors with at least ten days' notice has to be given to the concerned person. Thereafter, the resolution is required to be passed by a special general meeting and in such meeting, if two-thirds of the "total number of councillors'' pass a resolution expressing want of confidence in the President or the Vice-President as the case may be, they shall be deemed to have vacated the office forthwith.

8. According to the petitioners for purposes of S. 42 (9) of the Act the requisite majority of two-thirds of the councillors has to be calculated with reference to the existing number of councillors viz., 33 and not to the total number of 35 councillors of the Davanagere City Municipal Council. Shri C. N. Kamath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners,