Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
No-confidence motion against Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Zila Parishad.-- (1) Every Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a two-thirds majority of the total number of elected members of the Zila Parishad including the Panchayat Samitis of the district at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. (2) The requisition for a special meeting referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 116 shall be signed by not less than one-fifth of the total number of elected members of the Zila Parishad shall be delivered to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner on the receipt of such requisition shall within seven days from the date of receipt of the requisition himself convene a special meeting of the Zila Parishad or authorise an officer not below the rank of Extra Assistant Commissioner to convene such a meeting. (3) The special meeting under this section shall be held, on a day not later than fifteen days from the date of issue of the notice of the meeting and shall be presided over by the Deputy Commissioner or an Officer authorised by him under sub-section (2) and if the motion is carried out against the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, he shall cease to hold office of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, as the case may be: Provided that no requisition for no-confidence shall be made under this section unless a period of two years has elapsed from the date on which the Chairman, or Vice-Chairman, or both, as the case may be, assumed office. (4) If the motion of no-confidence against the Chairman and the Vice- Chairman or both is once rejected, no fresh motion of no-confidence against the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman or both, as the case may be, shall be brought before the Zila Parishad within a period of two years from the date of such rejection of the motion. Comments Removal of Chairman or Vice Chairman — The requisite two-third majority has to be calculated with reference to the total number of existing members. If the intention was otherwise, the Legislature would have inserted the word ‘existing’ or ‘actual’ instead of the word ‘total’. This not having been done, we cannot read the word ‘existing or ‘actual’ in Section 175 (1) of the Act. Reading the word ‘actual’ or ‘actual’ in place of ‘total’ would be doing violence to the plain language of Section 175 (1) of the Act -— Smt. Roop Kaur V/s State of Punjab 1998(2)PLR 179(P&H High Court DB).