P.K. Musahary, J.

1. Heard Mr. Habung Tangu, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. N. Lowang, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Koyang, learned for the Respondent No. 4. None appears on behalf of the private Respondent No. 3 in spite of notice being served upon him.

2. The fact leading to filing of this writ petition may be stated thus: The Petitioners, 11 in number, are directly elected members of 7-Reru-Kalung Anchal Samiti Segment, Ziro-1. The Respondent No. 4 was also elected as Anchal Chairperson for the aforesaid segment of Anchal Samiti. The Petitioners, on several occasions, approached the Respondent No. 4 with request to convene meeting to discuss about the implementation of development schemes in the said Anchal Samiti Segment but he turned deaf ear and as a result, many schemes remained unimplemented. They, having lost confidence on Respondent No. 4, initiated no confidence motion against him under the provision of Section 63 of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1997 ('1997 Act'). A meeting was convened on 25.8.2010 for discussion on the no confidence motion. Altogether 17 members remained present in the meeting and cast their votes. All the 11 Petitioners/AS Ms cast their votes in favour of motion while 6 members/AS Ms including Respondent No. 4 cast their votes against the motion. The Member Secretary concerned prepared minutes of no confidence proceeding of the meeting held on 25.8.2010 in which he recorded that two-thirds (2/3) of total 17 AS Ms is 11.33 and as the Petitioners could not secure two-thirds (2/3) of the total directly elected members, no confidence motion was rejected.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 25.8.2010 passed by the Respondent No. 3. Mr. Tangu, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that since 11 elected members voted in favour of motion, they have secured the required two-thirds (2/3) clear majority within the meaning of Section 63of the 1997 Act and the Member Secretary should have declared the motion passed and the Respondent No. 4 ceased to hold the office of the Chairperson. Mr. Tangu further argues that two-thirds (2/3) majority of total 17 members is 11.33, that means, there was a shortage of point thirty-three (.33) as the motion was supported by 11 members and the said shortage of point thirty-three (.33), being negligible is to be ignored as per the decimal rules in mathematics inasmuch as point thirty-three (.33) is less than the half (1/2) and the Respondent-Member secretary committed a serious mistake in not ignoring the fraction point thirty-three (.33) and rejecting the no confidence motion. He also argues that the lesser fraction is to be ignored inasmuch as a living person cannot be divided into fraction and the fraction of point thirty-three (.33) of a person cannot be accepted for the purpose of counting the votes. In support of this submissions, he relies on the decision of a Single bench of this Court in Jiten Saikia and Anr. v. State of Assam and Ors. 2004 (2) GLT 233. For proper appreciation he would submit that even in the election of President prescribed under (c) of Article 55 of the Constitution of India, each of the elected members of either house of parliament shall have such number of votes as may be obtained by dividing the total number of votes assigned to the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State. Under Clause (a)(b) by total number of elected members of both the houses of Parliament, fraction exceeding 1/2 (.5) is counted as 1 and the other fraction which is less than 1/2 (.5) are disregarded/ignored, which is similar to the provision contained in Rule 8 of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Delimitation of Constituencies and Reservation of Seats for Women) Rules, 2002. By adopting the above mentioned cut of line relating to fraction point thirty-three (.33), which is in q