R.N.MISRA, P.K.MOHANTY
ASHIRBAD BEHERA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA – Respondent
( 16 ) THERE is another aspect which should also be taken note of at this place. Admittedly, in the voting by ballot, all the 28 councillors participated and the result of voting shows that 14 supported the proposal and 14 opposed. In terms of Section 69 (2) of the Act, the Chairman gave his casting vote in favour of the proposal and it was thus adopted by a majority of votes. When all the 28 councillors had participated in the voting, so far as they are concerned, they can have no grievance. In fact, having acquiesced to the manner of voting, they should not now be permitted to raise any objection to it. No prejudice also appears to have been caused to them inasmuch as the voting by ballot gives a better opportunity of expressing one's own view independently. The fact that at the time of voting by ballot 14 had supported the resolution, but 15 councillors have now intervened to oppose the writ application goes to show that vote by ballot had been rightly resorted to for obtaining independent view of the councillors on the question. It was also canvassed before us that even if Rule 23 was applicable, the requirement was directory and not imperative. Therefore, non-compliance with r
REFERRED TO : Kasinath Tripathy v. State of Orissa
G. Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed
Bhogilal Chunilal v. State of Bombay
Sojharmal v. Mun. Council, Kharsia
Montreal Street Rly. v. Normandin
Raghubans Narain Singh v. Uttar Pradesh Govt.
Dattatraya Moreshwar v. State of Bombay
Surajmull Nagarmull v. Commr. of Income-tax
Adoni Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.