Kotval, J.:— We are concerned in this special civil application with a motion of no-confidence alleged to have been passed against the petitioner Vishwasrao Dajibarao Ghuge who was the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Malegaou, Taluq Washim, District Akola. The Panchayat Samiti, Malegaon, it is not in dispute, consists of 14 members and 2 associate members under s. 57 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (No. V of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was elected Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti on August 7, 1962, and less than two years thereafter on May 11, 1964, a no-confidence motion was attempted to be moved against him, but that motion was for reasons unknown withdrawn on May 22, 1964. Thereafter a fresh notice of a no-confidence motion under s. 72 of the Act was again given on October 24, 1964, by the present respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and 13. A meeting was convened by the petitioner for November 1, 1964. At that meeting, according to respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and 13, the no-confidence motion was validly passed.

2. The petitioner says that there were rival-factious in the Panchayat Samiti since a considerable time and that respondents Nos. 1 to 6 were in a minority and, therefore, wanted to oust the petitioner. They had made the first attempt, and when that attempt failed, made the present attempt to pass a no-confidence motion. According to the petitioner, the resolution has not been validly passed. The total possible membership of this Panchayat Samiti is 14 [the two—associate members not being entitled to vote under s. 57(1)(c) and (d) read with s. 72(7)]. The no-confidence motion has to be passed by a majority of the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti as laid clown under s. 72(7). Therefore, the motion could only have been passed if eight members out of a total of 14 had voted for the resolution. But in the present case, the persons who voted for the resolution were only 6 and, therefore, the resolution was not legally passed. It was also stated by the petitioner that respondents Nos. 11, 12 and 13 were initially members of the Panchayat Samiti by virtue of the fact that they were Sarpanehas elected by the members of the Gram Panchayats in accordance with the provisions of s. 57(2) of the Act. Their term of office having expired, they were re-elected by the respective Gram Panchayats prior to the date of the meeting i.e November 1, 1964. The dates of election and the villages from which they were re-elected as stated by the petitioner in para. 5 are as follows:

Name of the Gram Panchayat Date of Election Respondent No. 11 Borgaon September 12, 1964. Respondent No. 12 Mairaldon September 8, 1964. Respondent No. 13 Shelgaon Bondade October 13, 1964.

3. According to the petitioner, these persons being re-elected Sarpanchas were entitled to vote, but they were not given due notice of the meeting to be held on November 1, 1964, and, therefore, the entire proceedings of the meeting as well as the no-confidence motion passed in the meeting are vitiated. Now, it will be seen that, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is referring to the electorate for this purpose as the total possible membership of the Samiti as prescribed by s. 57 of the Act, but the respondents say that having regard to the provisions of s. 72(7), the law only requires a majority of the total number of members actually present at the meeting on November 1, 1964. If the latter view were to prevail, then the no-confidence motion must be held to be valid because there were on that date only eleven members present and six voted for the resolution. If the former view were to prevail, the total possible membership of this Samiti was 14, and so far obtaining a majority, at least 8 votes were necessary, which was not the case. Therefore, the no-confidence motion will have to be declared invalid.

4. Sub-section (7) of s. 72 of the Act runs as under:

“If the motion is carried by a majority of the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti (other than associate members), the Chairman, or as the case may be, the Deputy Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti shall cease to hold office forthwith; and the office held by such Chairman or Deputy Chairman shall be deemed to be vacant.”

5. The contention on behalf of the respondents is that when the sub-section speaks of “a majority of the total number of the Panchayat Samiti,” it means the total number of the members actually present and voting at the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, and in the present case they were 11. Therefore, the resolution must be deemed to be passed, because 6 members were in favour of it. On behalf of the petitioner it is urged that the expression “a majority of the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti” has reference to s. 57 which lays down the constitution of the Panchayat Samiti and which shows that the total number of members of this Panchayat Samiti was 14. The 2 associate members do not enter into the picture because by s. 57 read with s. 72(7) they have no right of vote. This is the principal point which arises for decision in this petition. That gives rise to the question what is the meaning of the words “a majority of the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti” in sub-s. (7) of s. 72 of the Act.

6. It was also argued on behalf of the respondents that on the date of the meeting, namely, November 1, 1964, the Panchayat Samiti itself consisted of 11 members because the three Sarpanchas, respondents Nos. 11, 12 and 13, were not entitled to sit in the Samiti because, though they had been elected as Sarpanchas of their respective Gram Panchayats as stated in the table we have reproduced above, still they had not been elected as members of the Panchayat Samiti under-s. 57(1)(f). It was also therefore contended that they were not entitled to notice and no illegality was committed when no notice of the meeting was served on them. It will be noticed that the latter point can only arise if the contention of the respondents upon the first point is upheld that by the use of the words “a majority of the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti” in sub-s. (7) of s. 72, is implied the actual number of members present at a particular meeting of the Panchayat Samiti and voting or the actual number of members entitled to sit as members of the Panchayat Samiti, but not if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that by that expression is implied the total number of possible members of the Panchayat Samiti as contemplated by s. 57. We, therefore, turn to consider this point.

7. Now, first it is necessary to consider the language of sub-s. (7) of s. 72 itself, and we notice that the expression used is not “a majority of the Panchayat Samiti” but “a majority of the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti”. If the respondents' contention be correct, that it was intended to imply by this expression the members of the Panchayat Samiti who were in fact members and actually entitled to sit as members of the Samiti, then the expression “a majority of the Pancliayat Samiti” or “a majority of the members of the Panchayat Samiti” would have sufficed and it would not have been necessary for the Legislature to say “a majority of the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti”. What then was intended by the Legislature when it used the expression “a majority of the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti”? Why was the word “total” used and what is the “total number”?

8. In order to determine what is the connotation of this expression, we turn to the provisions of s. 57 of the Act, which deals with the constitution of Panchayat Samitis. Sub-section (1) of that section deals with six categories of members of which the Panchayat Samiti is to consist. The sub-section begins with the words “Every Panchayat Samiti shall consist of”, and then enumerates the categories as follows:

“(a) all Councillors who are elected to the Zilla Parishad from the electoral divisions included in the Block,

(b) the co-opted Councillor, (if any) residing in the Block,

(c) the chairman of such co-operative society conducting the business of purchase and sale of agricultural products in the Block, as the State Government may by order specify in this behalf (to be an associate member),…

(The proviso is not necessary for our purposes).

(d) the chairman of a co-operative society conducting business relating to agriculture (not being a society falling under clause (c)) in the Block co-opted by the Panchayat Samiti (to be an associate member),

(e)(i) if the members of a Panchayat Samiti falling under clauses (a) and (f) do not include a woman, one woman residing in the Block co-opted by the Panchayat Samiti;

(ii) if the members of a Panchayat Samiti falling under clauses (a) and (f) of such Block as the State Government may specify in this behalf do not include a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, a member co-opted by the Panchayat Samiti being a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, from amongst persons residing in the Block;

(The proviso is unnecessary for the purposes of the point before us).

(f) Sarpanchas elected by members of Panchayats in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2)”.

9. It will thus be seen that barring the members contemplated in cl. (e) the number of members of the Panchayat Samiti would be fixed having regard to the provisions of s. 57, and so far as the members coming under cl. (e) are concerned, their number would also be fixed after the elections. Their number would depend upon whether a woman or a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes was elected from among the members of the categories (a) to (d). If no woman or a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes was elected from amongst the categories of members elected under cls. (a) to (d), then a woman and/or a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, will have to be co-opted by virtue of cl. (e). In any case, after the whole procedure under s. 57 is gone through, the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti as well as the number of members actually sitting would be known, and it seems to us that when the expression “the total number of members of the Pancliayat Samiti” was used in sub-s. (7) of s. 72, it was obviously intended to refer to the total number of the possible members of the Panchayat Samiti under sub-s. (1) of s. 57 and not the members actually entitled to sit. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that total number of members would be 14 leaving out of account the 2 associate members.

10. A consideration of the other provisions of s. 72 itself as well as of the Act leads to the same conclusion. Sub-section (1) of s. 72 deals with the tabling of the no-confidence motion and it says:

“A motion of no-confidence in the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti may be made by a requisition from not less than one-fourth of the total number of the members (other than associate members) after giving a notice thereof…”

11. Here again therefore, the expression is used “one-fourth of the total number of the members” in connection with a Panchayat Samiti. Now, if the contention of the respondents were to prevail that the meaning of these expressions “total number of the members of the Panchayat Samiti” in sub-ss. (1) and (7) of s. 72 means total number of members actually present and voting, then two other provisions of the Act negative that contention. If one turns to sub-s. (6) of s. 111, one finds the same expression used. Section 111 deals with meetings of Zilla Parishads and by virtue of s. 118 thereof the same provisions apply in relation to meetings of Panchayat Samitis with the modification that the words “Panchayat Samiti” shall be read instead of the words “Zilla Parishad” and with other modifications mutatis mutandis as indicated in s. 118. The provisions of s. 111, therefore, directly apply to Panchayat Samitis by virtue of s. 118. Now, dealing with the question of meetings of Panchayat Samitis sub-s. (6) of s. 111 says:

“All questions shall be decided by a majority of votes of the Councillors present and voting, the presiding authority having a second or casting vote in all cases of equality of votes.”

12. This provision would govern all meetings of the Panchayat Samiti other than meetings for which a special provision is made in the Act, such as a meeting at which a no-confidence motion is to be moved; but the language of the sub-section is in sharp contrast with the language used in sub-s. (7) of s. 72. Where a no-confidence motion is contemplated by this Act it is to be carried by “a majority of the total number of members of the Pancliayat Samiti”; whereas when normal resolutions are to be passed at a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, sub-s. (6) of s. 111 prescribes “a majority of votes of the Councillors present and voting”. The provisions of s. 111(6) show that the Legislature itself made a distinction between “the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti” and “members present and voting”. In that view, it is clear that the expression used in sub-s. (7) of s. 72 cannot be held to carry the meaning “the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti present and voting” when it says “the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti”.

13. Another provision of the Act which gives a similar indication is s. 61. That section deals with the removal of a member of the Panchayat Samiti for misconduct. The section has recently been amended by the maharashtra act no. xliii of 1962. Prior to amendment the section prescribed:

“The State Government may, if it thinks fit, on the recommendation of two-thirds of the members of the Panchayat Samiti present and voting, remove any member thereof…”

14. The section has been amended and for the words “two-thirds of the members of the Panchayat Samiti,” the words “the Panchayat Samiti supported by not less than two-thirds of the number of members” have been substituted. The words “present and voting” however remain. Here again, two things are patent: Firstly, the expression “the members of the Panchayat Samiti present and voting” shows again that where the Legislature intended to refer to the members actually present, it clearly said so. Therefore, it must be held that the expression “the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti” in s. 72(7) cannot mean the total number of members present and voting. Secondly, the amendment makes a distinction between members of the Panchayat Samiti and the Panchayat Samiti itself, and the amendment shows that the “recommendation” must be that of two-thirds of the members of the Panchayat Samiti present and voting. But the expression “total number of members” which is to be found in sub-s. (7) of s. 72 is not used here. Therefore, there is a clear distinction drawn in the statute itself between the members of the Panchayat Samiti or the number of members of the Panchayat Samiti and the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti. This word “total”, so far as we can see, is not to be found in any other provision of the Act except s. 111(7) dealing with voting. In our opinion, the real reason why it was used in sub-s. (7) of s. 72 was because it was intended to convey thereby the totality of the possible members of the Panchayat Samiti having regard to its constitution under s. 57 of the Act (excluding of course the associate members who are expressly excluded) and not the number of members who were present and voting at any meeting thereof.

15. Next, we find that in sub-s. (7) of s. 111 the word “total” comes to be used, and the manner of its use in that sub-section and the context in which it is used clearly indicate the intention of the draftsman. Sub-section (7) of s. 111 begins with the words:

“If less than one-third of the total number of Councillors be present at a meeting at any time from the beginning to the end thereof, the presiding authority shall adjourn the meeting to such hour on the following or some other future date as he may reasonably fix;…”

16. The sub-section fixes a quorum for the meetings of the Zilla Parishad and the Panchayat Samitis (when read with s. 118), and obviously if a quorum is to be prescribed it is usually the minimum number of the total possible membership of that body and that is precisely what sub-s. (7) of s. 111 prescribes. It says that the quorum shall be “one-third of the total number of Councillors” of those “present at a meeting at any time from the beginning to the end thereof”. Therefore, sub-s. (7) deals with two ideas “Councillors actually present” and “total number of Councillors” and it says that those who are actually present at a meeting shall not be below “one-third of the total number of Councillors”. In this context, and used as it is in contradistinction with the Councillors present at a meeting, the expression “total number of Councillors” can again only mean the total number of possible Councillors of the Zilla Parishad or possible members of the Panchayat Samiti having regard to s. 57. By the use of the word “total” before the word “number” the draftsman therefore clearly intended to refer to the totality of the possible membership of the Zilla Parishad or the Panchayat Samiti and that is the same expression which he has also used in sub-s. (7) of s. 72. Not merely is the similarity of the expression in the two sections—s. 72(7) and s. 111(7) telling but the contrast with the other expressions such as “Councillors present and voting” in s. 61 and s. 111(6) is telling. Similarly, the provisions of s. 39 which provides for removal of a Councillor for misconduct or disgraceful conduct etc. speak of “not less than two-thirds of the number of Councillors present and voting.”

17. It is clear from these provisions of the Act that where the Legislature had in contemplation the number of members actually present at a meeting, the expression has been used Councillors or members “present and voting”, but no such expression is to be found in sub-s. (7) of s. 72. Therefore, that is one indication that by the use of the words “the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti” in sub-s. (7) of s. 72, the members actually present at a meeting or voting at a meeting were not contemplated. Secondly, the use of the expression “the total number of members” in contrast with the mere use of the words “the number of Councillors or members” in other provisions is telling. By the use of the word “total” the draftsman has always implied the totality of the possible members of the Panchayat Samiti or the Zilla Parishad or in other words its total membership, and whenever he uses the word “total”, he does not have regard to the actual number of members or Councillors present. Thus, the internal indications furnished by the provisions of the Act show that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is correct and the interpretation sought to be placed on those words of sub-s. (7) of s. 72 on behalf of the respondents cannot be sustained.

18. Reference was made by Mr. Kheredekar to s. 112 of the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act. Sub-section (1) of s. 118 says that during any vacancy in a Zilla Parishad, the continuing Councillors may act as if no vacancy had occurred, and sub-s. (2) says that the Zilla Parishad shall have power to act notwithstanding any vacancy in the Councillorship; and also provides that notwithstanding any defect in the constitution, the power, to act remains. Read along with s. 118, this shows that a Panchayat Samiti frequently has its membership fluctuating and that its total number of members may never be known. We are not able to accept this contention, because in the first place s. 112 does not indicate what is the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti. All that it provides for is that the acts and things done at meetings of the Panchayat Samiti should not be invalidated because some person who was not entitled to do so, sat or voted or otherwise took part in the proceedings or that there was a defect in the constitution. It is the usual provision made to safeguard deliberations of public bodies consisting of many members where due to an inadvertent error in its constitution or the inadvertent taking part by a person not qualified to do so may have the effect of vitiating the entire proceedings. The section which really deals with the constitution of Panchayat Samitis is s. 57, and as we have already indicated, upon an analysis of that section, after the entire process contemplated by that section for bringing into existence the Panchayat Samiti is complete, the total number of members of the Samiti must get fixed even having regard to cl. (e) of sub-s. (1) thereof. Section 112 does not, therefore, assist in the interpretation of sub-s. (7) of s. 72.

19. It was next argued by Mr. Kheredekar that the word “total” must be regarded as mere surplusage or included with a view to additional emphasis and nothing more. The argument would have some force in it if the expression “the total number of members” had been uniformly used throughout the Act wherever it was intended to indicate the number of members present and voting at a meeting or entitled to sit for the time being in a Panchayat Samiti. But we have shown that in other provisions of this very Act, wherever it was intended to refer to persons actually present and voting the legislative draftsman has used appropriate expressions such as “the members present and voting”. This contention, therefore, also fails.

20. A considerable part of the arguments were directed to the object and purpose of the legislation which, it was said, ought to influence our interpretation. The interpretation which we are inclined to accept appears to us to be consistent with the object behind the legislation so far as it can be gathered from this provision. The provisions for the moving of no-confidence motions against the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Zilla Parishads and the Sarpanch and Upa-Sar-panch of the Panchayat Samiti are, so far as we are aware, somewhat unique in a legislation on Local Self-Government, and the Legislature, it appears, thought that the extraordinary right given to the members of these bodies to throw out the Chairman or the Sarpanch should be exercised carefully and only in extreme cases and so it appears the law deliberately imposed more stringent limitations upon the exercise of that right than the limitation imposed for decisions on other subjects. That is why also, originally a bare majority was sufficient, but now by the amending Act No. XLIII of 1964 what is required is a two-thirds majority of the total number of members of the body concerned. For the same reason it appears that the simple majority contemplated in the section as it originally stood was deliberately limited not to the members present and voting at a meeting but to the total number of possible members of the Panchayat Samiti, that is to say, the total membership of the Panchayat Samiti. The principle is understandable having regard to the extraordinary nature of the right granted by s. 72 to the other members. On the other hand, the construction canvassed on behalf of the respondents may result in a grave abuse of this right and bring about a deadlock. The provisions of sub-ss. (1), (2) and (3) indicate that after the notice is given the Chairman has to call a meeting to consider such a motion within 10 days of the receipt of the notice. Sub-section (1) prescribes that in order to give a notice of no-confidence the requisition must be signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of members. Now, if one turns to s. 57 and glances through the various categories of members, it is clear that some of the members could go out of office and be replaced during the life of a Samiti, thus adding to the membership of the Samiti and enlarging the number of persons who could be actually present and vote at the meeting where the no-confidence motion is to be discussed. If the interpretation which the respondents seek to put upon sub-s. (7) of s. 72 were to be accepted, there may be a conceivable case where a large number of members may become sitting members of the Panchayat Samiti after the notice of no-confidence is given, as for example, under s. 57(1)(f). In that event, the question would arise whether the no-confidence motion is sponsored by one-fourth of the total number of members. Thus, on the date on which it was given the requisition though valid would be rendered invalid before the meeting to be called ten days after. Such a state of affairs could not have been in the contemplation of the Legislature, and indeed that is why the law expressly mentions the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti, that is to say, the totality of the possible members comprising the Samiti, and not the actual members for the time being. That total membership is always a fixed membership before each meeting.

21. Upon the view we have taken it is clear that in the instant case the respondents had 6 votes in favour of the no-confidence motion and those 6 votes did not constitute “a majority of the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti”. The majority, having regard to the facts here that the Panchayat Samiti was constituted of 14 members, would be 8. In the result, therefore, the no-confidence motion which is said to have been carried must be set aside as invalidly passed.

22. In the view we have taken it is not necessary to discuss the other point arising in this petition as to whether respondents Nos. 11, 12 and 13 were members of the Panchayat Samiti on November 1, 1964 and whether they could be counted as members of the Samiti.

23. In our view, the number of members actually sitting in the Samiti on a particular day is not the criterion so far as sub-s. (7) of s. 72 is concerncd, but the only criterion is the totality of the possible membership of the Samiti. The question whether respondents Nos. 11, 12 and 13 were members, therefore, does not arise.

24. In the result, the rule is made absolute and the motion of no-confidence passed on November 1, 1964 against the petitioner is quashed. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 shall pay the costs of the petitioner.

25. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court refused.

26. Rule made, absolute.