No-confidence motion under municipal law counts only voting elected members, excluding nominated members without voting rights.

The phrase "whole number of members" in the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No-Confidence against Chairman/Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974 must be read contextually to mean the total number of elected members entitled to vote. After the Seventy-fourth Constitutional Amendment and corresponding amendments to the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, nominated members were denied voting rights, while the chairman and vice-chairman continued to be elected from among elected members. The statutory scheme therefore excludes non-voting nominated members from the calculation of the two-thirds majority needed to carry a no-confidence motion. The plea of casus omissus was rejected because the text and context left no gap requiring judicial insertion.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purpose of carrying a no-confidence motion against the chairman or vice-chairman of a municipal board, the expression "whole number of members" in Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No-Confidence against Chairman/Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974 includes nominated members who have no right to vote, or is confined to elected members entitled to vote.

Analysis: The expression "whole number" in the definition section of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 had to be read in the context of the Act and the rules governing removal of a chairman or vice-chairman. Before the 1994 constitutional and statutory amendments, nominated or co-opted members were treated on par with elected members and had voting rights, so the statutory scheme required the no-confidence motion to be tested against members having the right to vote. After the Seventy-fourth Constitutional Amendment and the corresponding amendments to sections 9, 65 and 72 of the Act, nominated members were expressly denied voting rights, while the chairman and vice-chairman continued to be elected from amongst elected members. On that scheme, the words "whole number of members" in Rule 3 could not be read to include members who were not entitled to vote. The plea of casus omissus was rejected because the statutory context showed no gap requiring judicial filling.

Conclusion: The expression "whole number of members" in Rule 3 means the total number of elected members entitled to vote, and nominated members are excluded for calculating the two-thirds majority required to carry a no-confidence motion.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute and rules governing a no-confidence motion show that removal depends on the vote of members entitled to vote, the phrase "whole number of members" must be construed contextually as the whole number of such voting members, not as including non-voting nominated members.

---