Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.: - Municipal Committee, Naraingarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’) consists of 13 elected members and two nominated members, i.e., Member Parliament from Ambala and Member Legislative Assembly, Naraingarh, who were nominated as such under Section 9(3) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Appellant Sanjeev Kumar Verma was elected President of the Committee in the meeting held on 21.6.2010. His name was notified in the official gazette of the State of Haryana. In a meeting of the members of the Committee held on 3.8.2012, a no confidence motion was passed against the appellant under Section 21 of the Act read with Rule 72-A of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) for his removal as President. Out of 15 members to whom the notices were given, i.e., 13 elected and 2 nominated, as stated above, only 9 elected members came present in the meeting and unanimously passed the no confidence motion against the appellant by way of secret ballot. Since the no confidence motion was passed by 9 out of 13 elected members of the Committee, it was declared to be carried out with the support of two-thirds of the elected members of the Committee, and on passing the said resolution the appellant was deemed to have vacated his office.

2. The appellant challenged the said resolution by filing CWP No.15125 of 2012 in this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.02.2013 while holding that for the purpose of carrying out No Confidence Motion, 2/3rd majority of the elected members, as envisaged under Section 21(3) of the Act, is required, and the members nominated under Section 9(3)(ii) of the Act are not to be taken as elected members for the purpose of counting 2/3rd of the total number of members of the Committee for passing No Confidence Motion. It was held that such interpretation would be contrary to the plain language of Section 21(3) and would further run counter to the true spirit of the legislative intent in framing of the Act. The appellant challenged the said order by filing the instant Appeal. It was contended that the resolution of no confidence was not passed against the appellant with the support of two-thirds ‘elected members of the Committee’. According to him, ‘elected members’ would include the two nominated members, who were elected from larger constituencies, thus, the total elected members came to 15 and two-thirds of which would be 10, whereas the resolution of no confidence was passed only by 9 elected members. In support of his contention, a reliance was placed on the following observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Krishan Kumar Singla Versus The State of Haryana and Ors., (1999-3) 123 PLR 150:-

“26.(f) Before amendment of Section 21(3) it used the expression ‘not less than 2/3rd of the members’ who could carry the no confidence motion of a Committee. This Section was amended to incorporate the words ‘not less than 2/3rd of the elected members.’ The elected members naturally would include the members who become members of the Committee by virtue of their having been elected as member of the House of People, Legislative Assembly or council as the case may be, for the constituency of which the Municipal Committee is a segment. The expression ‘elected members’ must be given its proper connotation and meaning which would help to further the object of the legislation rather than to oust the people who were otherwise granted a protected right by necessary implication of the constitutional provisions. These elected members would obviously have a better understanding of the controversies, and the implication of a particular decision taken by the Committee and the manner in which such decision could be effectively implemented at different levels of the State Administration. Thus, they effectively participate and help the administration of the Committee at the gr