JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against a resolution of no-confidence passed by the Municipal Board of Pilibhit against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was the President of the Municipal Board of Pilibhit. On 6-6-1959 the District Magistrate of Pilibhit issued a notice convening a meeting of the Municipal Board on 24-6-1959 for considering the motion of no-confidence against the President. A meeting of the Municipal Board was accordingly held on 24-6-1959. The Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, presided over the meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting the Presiding Officer took votes by a show of hands. Two members of the Board present in the meeting demanded a poll. But the Presiding Officer did not take a poll. The Presiding Officer made a declaration that the motion of no-confidence against the President was passed. The petitioner has moved this writ petition against that resolution of no confidence. 3. The sole point urged by Mr. S. C. Khare appearing for the petitioner is that, the proceedings in the meeting were vitiated due to the refusal of the Presiding Officer to take a poll. 4. The meeting in question was held in accordance with Sec. 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act. Sec. 87-A contains elaborate provisions for a motion of no-confidence against the President. There are 15 sub-Secs. in Sec. 87-A. Sub-sec. (9) of Sec. 87-A lays down that, the motion shall be put to the vote of the Board upon the conclusion of the debate. No particular method of taking votes of members has been prescribed in Sec. 87-A of the Act. 5. The Indian Companies Act contains provisions for holding company meetings. Sec. 177 of the Companies Act provides for a resolution put before the meeting to be decided on a show of hands. Sec. 179 of the Companies Act provides for a demand for poll. Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 179 states: "Before or on the declaration of the result of the voting on any resolution on a show of hands, a poll may be ordered to be taken by the Chairman of the meeting of his own motion, and shall be ordered to be taken by him on a demand made in that behalf by the persons or person specified below.........." 6. It will be seen that, in the first part of Sub-Sec. (1) , a poll is left to the discretion of the Chairman. In the latter part of Sub-Sec. (1) a poll is obligatory if demanded by certain persons. 7. The law of voting has been discussed in Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 9 on pages 52 and 53 thus: "At common law votes at all meetings are taken by a show of hands followed, if necessary, by a poll; and, in the absence of any special provision to the contrary in the constitution of a particular corporation the common law method must prevail. Voting by show of hands means counting the persons present who are entitled to vote and who choose to vote by holding up their hands. Where a corporate vote is authorised by the constitution, bye law, statute or otherwise to be taken in a particular manner, every corporator has at common law a right, immediately at the conclusion of that taking of such vote, to demand a poll unless such right is clearly taken away by statute or special custom." 8. I take it that, that is the correct statement of the common law in England. But I am not satisfied that, that is the common law in India also. 9. Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 37 of the Civil Courts Act states : "In cases not provided for by sub-Sec. (1) or by any other law for the time being in force, the Court shall act according to justice, equity and good conscience." 10. The expression 'justice, equity and good conscience' has been generally interpreted as meaning the application of English principles. Sec. 37 (2), Civil Courts Act governs civil courts. The Presiding Officer in the meeting in question was not a civil court. 11. In Duraiswami's Law of Municipal Corporations in British India, the learned author has observed on page 9: "The present law of corporations in British India is being worked out with great fullness and ingenuity after the English model and has to be explained by the principles of the English law of Corporations." 12. The same author has discussed the method of voting on pages 154 and 155. The usual methods of voting are: "(1) voice, (2) by show of hands, (3) by a division, and (4) by a poll. The same author has discussed the method of voting on pages 154 and 155. The usual methods of voting are: "(1) voice, (2) by show of hands, (3) by a division, and (4) by a poll. When the method of voting is not prescribed, the common law method of voting by a show of hands, must prevail. Where a corporate vote is authorised to be taken in a particular manner, every corporator has at common law a right, immediately at the conclusion of the taking of such vote, to demand a poll unless such right is clearly taken away by statute." 13. It appears that the learned author was simply quoting the relevant passages from Halsbury's Laws of England. 14. In Mohd. Razes Khan v. Mohd. Askari Khan, A.I.R. 1924 Allahabad 599 the following observation appears on page 601: "It is, of course, sometimes dangerous to attempt to ascertain the law in India by the discussion of English cases. But in a matter of this kind, where in legislation like the Municipalities Act, following closely upon English Local Government legislation, the Legislature has left the matter at large, without following it up by codifying the general law on a topic as the highways, the Courts in India are really enjoined to apply the English principles. ............The Privy Council has declared that direction is generally interpreted as meaning the application of English principles, "unless there is some thing in the state of Indian society which makes those principles either inapplicable altogether, or necessarily modified." 15. In that case the learned Judges had to consider the rights of the public in a highway. The Court applied the principles of English law in deciding those rights. 16. Mr. S. C. Khare did not draw my attention to any decision of an Indian High Court laying down that, the right to demand a poll has become the common law in India as regards the law of meetings. 17. The matter may, therefore, be decided on broad principles. It appears that there is some scope for committing a mistake in counting votes from a show of hands. Counting votes after a poll is likely to be more accurate. So, in cases where there is apprehension of a possible mistake in counting votes from a show of hands, the Presiding Officer would be well advised to take a poll. It appears that there is some scope for committing a mistake in counting votes from a show of hands. Counting votes after a poll is likely to be more accurate. So, in cases where there is apprehension of a possible mistake in counting votes from a show of hands, the Presiding Officer would be well advised to take a poll. But it is not necessary to insist upon a poll in every case. The matter may well be left to the discretion of the Presiding Officer. 18. According to sub-Sec. (12) of Sec. 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act, a motion of no-confidence shall be deemed to have been carried only when it has been passed by a majority of more than half of the total number of members of the Board. I am informed that, the Municipal Board of Pilibhit consisted of 26 members. So, for passing a resolution of no-confidence, the resolution needed the backing of at least 14 members. The proceedings of the meeting of 24-6-1959 have been filed by the petitioner. These proceedings show that, eighteen members supported the resolution, while two members opposed the motion. We thus find that the resolution was carried by a comfortable majority of votes. Considering the number of members involved,' and the number of supporters of the resolution, there was not much scope for a possible mistake. Assuming for the sake of argument that members were entitled to demand a poll, the refusal of the Presiding Officer to take a poll does not appear to have prejudiced the petitioner on merits. So, in any view of the matter, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution will not be justified. 19. The petition is dismissed with costs to opposite party no. 1.