The interpretation of statutory definitions and their application in specific contexts is crucial in determining the legal rights and obligations of the parties involved.

F. I. REBELLO, J.

( 1 ) RULE was issued on 12-7-2005. Notice was issued to respondent no. 4. Sheristedar informs that respondent No. 4 has been served.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS are all elected councillors of the Municipal Council, Bhandara. They have been elected in the general elections held in January, 2002. Since then the petitioners are in office. After the declaration of results in the year 2002, respondent No. 2 published the names of 32 elected Councillors. Similarly, the name of respondent No. 4 was also published as being elected as a President of the Council. Both publications were in the official gazette. The elected Councillors including the petitioners moved requisition to respondent No. 2 on 7-5- 2005 to hold a special meeting for considering a motion of no-confidence against respondent no. 4. In view of the requisition, respondent no. 2 convened a special meeting of the council on 17-5-2005 to consider the motion of no- confidence against respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 2 appointed respondent No. 3 to preside over the meeting to be held on 17-5-2005. The meeting was held on 17-5-2005 for considering the motion of no-confidence. It is the case of the petitioners that, they apprehended that, respondent No. 3 would commit an error in law by considering respondent No. 4 as elected Councillors and would so count him while calculating the number required for three fourths majority. Therefore, petitioner No. 2 on 17-5-2005 lodged objection with respondent no. 3. It was contended that respondent No. 4 is not an elected Councillor and is not entitled to vote. It was clarified that, if 24 elected members remain present in the meeting and vote in favour of the motion, then the motion will have to be treated to be passed by 3/4th majority. On 17-5-2005 a special meeting was held and as many as 24 elected Councillors out of 32 Councillors along with two co-opted councillors were present for the meeting. As respondent No. 3 found that, there was necessary quorum for the meeting, the requisition was placed for consideration and was put to vote. 24 Councillors voted in favour of passing of no-confidence motion. Inspite of that, respondent No. 3 illegally declared the motion as failed by holding that, 3/4th of the majority would be 25 Councillors and not 24 councillors. It is also pointed out that, respondent No. 3 on 17-5-2005 had passed an order on the objection/representation of the petitioners holding that considering Sub-section (7) of Section 2 of the Maharashtra Municipal councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial townships Act, 1965, which defines, "councillors" includes the directly elected president. It is set out that, action of respondent No. 3 of declaring that the motion of no-confidence has failed as 25 Councillors have not voted in favour, is illegal, arbitrary, and such order is totally without jurisdiction and is against established principles of law. It is, therefore, submitted that, action of respondent No. 3 is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act. It is submitted that, merely because the directly elected President is included in the definition of "councillor", it does not mean that the President of the Council becomes an elected Councillor. The decision, therefore, of respondent No. 3 by order dated 17-5-2005, is clearly contrary to law. It is pointed out that, considering the various provisions of the Act, it would be clear that, directly elected President is not an elected councillor. In other words, it is submitted that, while considering the 3/4th of the majority required for passing the motion of no- confidence, the President being not elected councillor, he cannot be counted for the purpose of determining the total number of councillors, and/or in alternative be counted for or computing the 3/4th required to pass motion of no-confidence. Reliance is placed on the various provisions of the Act to contend that definition of "councillor" contained in Section 2 (7) is merely an extended definit