JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This application under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by a former Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti challenging the validity of his removal from office on the strength of a resolution of no-confidence passed against him in a special meeting held for the purpose. 2. The Petitioner was the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Betnoti, in the district of Mayurbhanj. On a requisition given by thirteen members a special meeting of the Samiti was held on 13-11-1963 to pass a vote of no-confidence against the Petitioner. Out of the 20 members who attended the said meeting, eleven voted in support of the motion and the resolution was taken to be passed by a majority of the members and in due course the Petitioner was removed from office. 3. The Petitioner's case is that u/s 46-B(1) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishad Act, 1959 (Orissa Act 7 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) a valid vote of no-confidence can be passed only when it is supported by a majority of the total number of members having right to vote and that the total number of such members of the Samiti being 22, the support of 12 members is necessary to pass such a resolution and since only eleven members supported the resolution, the resolution was not passed in accordance with law and such a resolution has no legal effect. The Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 54-A of the Act preferred a revision before the Government, but the Government by order dated 12-5-1964 rejected the revision petition. It took the view that the number of members having right to vote as stated in Section 54-A- B-(1) does not refer to the total strength of such members of the Samiti, but refers only to such number of members as existed on the date of the meeting. Nityananda Sahu, one of the members of the Samiti was alleged to have resigned his membership on 11-11-19631 that is, two days before the meeting as held. Thus according to the State the total number of members was reduced to 21 on the date of meeting and the resolution was carried by a majority of votes as it was supported by eleven members having a right to vote. Thus according to the State the total number of members was reduced to 21 on the date of meeting and the resolution was carried by a majority of votes as it was supported by eleven members having a right to vote. The Petitioner has now come up with this application challenging the validity of the said resolution and the order of the Government rejecting his petition and for a direction that the vote of no-confidence passed against the Petitioner was illegal and ineffective. 4. The main contention of Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the no-confidence resolution not having been passed by a majority of votes as required u/s 46-B of the Act, it is wholly reflective in law and must be quashed. To appreciate the argument, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of Section 46.B of the Act. Section 46.B runs as follows: Section 46.B(I)-Where at a meeting of the Parishad or Samiti specially convened in that behalf a resolution is passed supported by a majority of the total number of members having a right to vote, recording want of confidence in the Chairman or Vice Chairman of Such Parishad or Samiti the resolution shall forthwith be published by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed and with effect from the date of such publication, the Chairman or Vice Chairman, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated office. It may be mentioned here that under the scheme of the Act, the members of a Panchayat Samiti can be broadly divided into two categories. The official members who have a right to participate in the proceedings, but have no right to vote in the proceedings. The other category is the non-official members who have a right to vote. It is admitted that the total number of non-official members of the Samiti having right to vote was 22 in all, though it is said on the date of the meeting one of such members had resigned. The result of the present application depends upon the proper construction of this provision. It is admitted that the total number of non-official members of the Samiti having right to vote was 22 in all, though it is said on the date of the meeting one of such members had resigned. The result of the present application depends upon the proper construction of this provision. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges that "majority of the total number of members having a right to vote" means the majority of the total strength of the members having a right to vote and not the majority of an the then members of the Samiti as contended on behalf of the State. 5. As already said, in the Betnoti Panchayat Samiti the, total number of such members having a right to vote is 22, it is not disputed that a meeting was duly convened under a resolution and was held on 13-11-1963, and in the said meeting 20 such members who had a right to vote were present and of them eleven voted in support of the resolution. Mr. Das urged that though the resolution was supported by eleven members, it cannot be said to have been' carried by a majority of votes and all that the law requires is that the resolution must be supported by at least 12 members to constitute a majority out of the total strength of 22, that is the total number of members having right to vote. 6. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the B.D.O. who is not pulling on well with the Petitioner managed to call this meeting with a view to pass the motion of no-confidence against him, but when he found that the resolution received the support of only eleven members, he manipulated to get an antedate resignation letter from Sri Nityananda Sahu, a member of the Samiti, showing that he has tendered the resignation of his membership on 11-11-1963. This step was taken by him to reduce the number of membership on the date of th meeting from 22 to 21 so as to make out a case that eleven out of twenty-one members having constituted a majority, the vote of no confidence was validly passed. 7. It appears that the Petitioner challenged the genuineness of the transaction regarding the resignation letter given by Sri Nityananda Sahu on 11-11-1963. 7. It appears that the Petitioner challenged the genuineness of the transaction regarding the resignation letter given by Sri Nityananda Sahu on 11-11-1963. He contended that it was a subsequent manipulation made in an attempt to legalise the resolution. On this question, it appears that some enquiries were made by the authorities. I shall deal with the question a little later. For the present, however, I shall assume that one of the members submitted his resignation on 11-11-1963 and the number of members that were on the roll on the date of the meeting was twenty-one. 8. It was contended on behalf of the, State that the total number of members having a right to vote must necessarily refer to the existing number as the number may be temporarily reduced either by casual vacancy on account of death, resignation or otherwise, for the purpose of determining the majority u/s 46-B. We have already seen that not all the members of the Samiti have a right to vote in a meeting requisitioned to pass a no-confidence motion and on this point, the law has made a clear distinction between the members who have a right to vote and those who have a right to take part in the proceeding but have no such right to vote. The expression "total number of members having a right to vote" has thus been used in contradiction to those members who have no such right, and it has nothing to do with the casual, vacancies. In this connection, it is necessary to examine some other provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder with a view to determine the true meaning of the above expression. 9. Section 46-B(2) lays down the procedure in convening a meeting u/s 46-B(I) for passing a motion of nor confidence. Under Sub-section (2)(a) no such meeting can be convened except on a requisition signed by at least one-third of the members with a right to vote accompanied by a copy of the proposed resolution and under Sub-Section 2(c) of Section 46-B, the Collector or the Sub-divisional Officer shall, on receipt of such requisition, give notice of the same to all the members with a right to vote. Under Sub-Section 2(g) if the number of members present at the meeting is less than the majority of members having a right to vote, the resolution shall stand automatically annulled. Under Sub-Section 2(g) if the number of members present at the meeting is less than the majority of members having a right to vote, the resolution shall stand automatically annulled. Sub-section 2(h) provides that if the resolution is passed at a meeting supported by the majority of members having a right to vote, the Collector or the Sub-divisional Officer shall forward the resolution to the prescribed authority. Thus, in case of a meeting meant for passing a resolution of want of confidence on the Chairman of the Samiti, a rigorous standard has been prescribed, at several stages, such as the requisition for calling the meeting, the quorom in the meeting and finally the passing of the resolution by a majority. In none of these provisions any mention has been made to the number of members as then existed at the relevant point of time. 10. u/s 57 of the Act the State Government had been vested with the powers after previous publication, to make rules consistent with the provision of the Act to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 57 all rules made under the section shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly for a total period of fourteen days and shall be subject to such modification as the Assembly may make during the period. In exercise of that power, the State Government framed the Orissa Zilla Parishad (Conduct of Business Rules, 1960, (hereinafter caned as 'the Rules'). Rule 13 of those Rules prescribes the quorum for the meetings of the Parishad or Samiti. It runs as follows: A quorum for the meetings of the Parishad or Samiti shall be one-third of the total number of nonofficial members then on the Roll of the Parishad or Samiti. Thus, the Rules make a clear distinction between the total number of non-official members and such members having right to vote as envisaged in Section 46-B(1) who were then on the Roll for the purpose of a quorum in an ordinary meeting. The Rules were framed for the conduct of business. As seen above, in Rule 13, it has been expressly provided that the quorum shall be determined with respect to the non-official members then on the roll of the Parishad or Samiti. The Rules were framed for the conduct of business. As seen above, in Rule 13, it has been expressly provided that the quorum shall be determined with respect to the non-official members then on the roll of the Parishad or Samiti. The expression "the member then on the roll" has been defined in Rule 2(7) to mean the "total" sanctioned strength of members excluding seats which are vacant". The expression "total number of members having a right to vote" has not been defined in the Art or in the Rules, but the Rules make a clear distinction between the two expressions. The quorum means for ordinary meetings as prescribed in the Rules and refers to the non-official members then on the Roll and the quorum for the meeting meant to pass motion of no confidence refers to the total strength or number of members having a right to vote. The State Government who were entrusted with the duty of framing the Rules thought it advisable to use the expression "members then on the Roll" in Rule 13 and to define the same in Rule 2(7) of the Rules. Section 46-B lays down the special procedure to be adopted for passing a resolution of no-confidence on the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman of the Parish ad or Samiti. u/s 46-B(2)(f) no such meeting can stand adjourned to a subsequent date and no item of business other than the resolution for recording want of confidence shall be taken up for consideration and under Sub-section (2)(g) the resolution shall stand annulled if the number of members present at the meeting is less than the majority of members having a right to vote and in such a case no fresh requisition for such a meeting shall be maintainable before expiry of thirty days and where a resolution of no-confidence is defected after being considered at such a meeting, no fresh requisition for such a meeting is maintainable before expiry of six months from the date of the meeting. Thus, for passing a resolution of no-confidence a rigid procedure has been laid down, the policy of the law being that a more strict procedure is to be followed in cases of such resolution. Thus, for passing a resolution of no-confidence a rigid procedure has been laid down, the policy of the law being that a more strict procedure is to be followed in cases of such resolution. No such rigorous standard has been prescribed in the Rules for conduct of business in ordinary meetings, where under the rules the meetings may be adjourned from time to time and a number of subjects may come up for consideration in a particular meeting. In all such meetings, the Rules have made an express reference to the members then on the Roll of the Samiti. Rule 8 lays down that the Chairman of the Parishad Samiti shall for a special meting of the Parishad or Samiti on the requisition of the one-third of the members then on the Roll, of the Parish ad or Samiti specifying the resolution which it is proposed to be moved and as seen above, Rule 13 fixes the quorum for the meeting at one-third of the total number of non-official members then on the Roll. We have seen that u/s 57(3), the Rules framed by the State Government were, in usual course, laid before the Legislative Assembly and were available for such modification as the Assembly might make. The Legislature is supposed to have noticed the distinction between the expression used in the provisions in Section 46-B(I) and in Rule 13 of the Rules in so far as the quorum of the different kinds of meetings are concerned. In the former, it refers to the majority of the total number of member's having a right to vote whereas in the latter, it speaks of the one-third of only the member's then on the Roll in the Samiti. The legislature did not choose to make any modification in the Rules on the point. It is reasonable to hold that the Legislature wanted to maintain a clear distinction between the two expressions. In view of this clear distinction, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Advocate-General that the expression "total number of members having a right to vote" used in Section 46-B carries the same meaning as total number of members as then on the Roll, an expression used in the Rules. The policy behind this distinction is clear. In view of this clear distinction, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Advocate-General that the expression "total number of members having a right to vote" used in Section 46-B carries the same meaning as total number of members as then on the Roll, an expression used in the Rules. The policy behind this distinction is clear. The Legislature did not want to adopt the same standard in case of both the ordinary meetings and the meetings requisitioned for passing of resolution of no-confidence on the Chairman. In the case of ordinary meetings, the strength of the Samiti shall be considered in terms of the members as existing on the roll at the relevant time and in case of meetings for the purpose of passing a resolution of no confidence, the number has to be calculated in relation to the total strength or the number of such non-official members having a right to vote constituting the Samiti. It was contended on behalf of the State that Section 46 contemplates that for some reason or other there may occur a casual vacancy of a member and makes provision for filling up the same, and it is just possible that such vacancies may occur in the usual course of events all that Section 48 lays down that no act or proceeding of a Samiti shall be questioned on account of any vacancy in the membership or due to defect or irregularity In such proceedings. We are, however, not concerned with the question of any vacancy or touching the validity of the proceeding itself. In fact, a casual vacancy has nothing to do if the majority has to be determined with reference to the total strength of the members entitled to vote. The short question is whether the resolution has been passed by a majority of the total number of members having a right to vote. The learned Advocate-General pointed out that the word "total" does not find place in Section 46-B(2)(h) and contended that all that the law requires is that the resolution has to be supported by a majority of the then members having a right to vote. The learned Advocate-General pointed out that the word "total" does not find place in Section 46-B(2)(h) and contended that all that the law requires is that the resolution has to be supported by a majority of the then members having a right to vote. Section 46-B(2)(h) runs as follows: (h) If the resolution is passed at the meeting supported by the majority of members having a right to vote, the Collector or the Sub-divisional Officer, as the case may be, shall forward the resolution to the authority prescribed in pursuance of Sub-section (1). Section 46.B(I) in clear and in express terms lays down that a resolution of no-confidence has to be passed in a meeting supported by a total number of members having a right to vote. Sub-section (2) of that section only lays down the procedure in the conduct of business in such meetings and Section 46-B(2)(h) simply Jays down that after such a resolution is passed by a majority, it has to be forwarded to the prescribed authority by Collector or the Sub-divisional Officer, as the case may be. We have to read the entire section as a whole to find out the true meaning. Moreover, Section 46-B(I) is in the nature of a substantive provision and it is one of the canons of construction that the procedural enactments should be construed literally and in such manner as to render the enforcement of the substantive provision effective (See N.T. Veluswami Thevar Vs. G. Raja Nainar and Others. The substantive provision in clear terms in this case, refers to the total number of members having a right to vote and that must prevail. It confers a right on the Chairman to retain his office until removal in a specified manner. 11. The number of members of the Samiti having right to vote being twenty-two, eleven cannot constitute a majority number for the purpose of passing a resolution of no-confidence on the Petitioner. The resolution must, therefore, be held not to have been passed by a majority in accordance with the law and must be held to be ineffective. There are no direct decision on this point. In this connection, however, I may refer to two of the decisions of this Court in Rajkishore Mohanty v. State of Orissa ILR 1963 Cutt 625 and Padmanav Thatoi v. State of Orissa 30 C.L.T 382. There are no direct decision on this point. In this connection, however, I may refer to two of the decisions of this Court in Rajkishore Mohanty v. State of Orissa ILR 1963 Cutt 625 and Padmanav Thatoi v. State of Orissa 30 C.L.T 382. Both the cases relate to the passing of vote of no-confidence on a Sarpanch, election to whose office is governed by the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act and the rules made thereunder. In the first case, the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat was 16 in number, but one of them had resigned and the vacancy so caused by resignation remained unfilled till the date of the special meeting held for the passing of a resolution recommending removal of the Sarpanch. In that meeting out of the remaining 15 member only eight attended. Under Rule 35(c) of the Rules, a resolution of no-confidence has to be passed by a majority of members of the sanctioned strength of the Grama Panchayat. It was held that the eight members not having constituted the majority of the sanctioned strength, the removal of the Sarpanch on the strength of the resolution passed by eight members was invalid. Subsequent to that meeting, the Government, however, in purported exercise of their powers, u/s 14 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, by a notification defined the expression -"sanctioned strength for the purpose of Rule 35(c) of the Grama Panchayat Rules as meaning the members actually holding office on the date of the meeting. Their Lordships took the view that the later notification by the State Government cannot affect the resolution which was passed prior to the date of the notification. The same view was also taken in the other case stated above. In that case the total number of members of the Panchayat was fixed at 18, two members died prior to the date of meeting which was held on 19-3-1963. Out of the remaining only 13 members were present of whom nine voted in favour of the no-confidence motion recommending removal of the Sarpanch. Long before the meeting was held on 19-3-196a, the Government by notification dated 21-6-1962, had clarified the position by saying that the actual strength in Rule 35(c) would mean the total number of member's holding office on the relevant date. Long before the meeting was held on 19-3-196a, the Government by notification dated 21-6-1962, had clarified the position by saying that the actual strength in Rule 35(c) would mean the total number of member's holding office on the relevant date. This Court held that in this notification there was no reference to the construction of the expression "sanctioned strength" occurring in Clause (c) of Rule 35. They held that the resolution having been supported by only nine members, it was not passed by majority and as such was ineffective in law. It may be mentioned here that no such rules were framed in the present case, so as to clarify the meaning of the expression "total number of members having a right to vote" appearing in Section 46-Bl) of the Act. It will appear from a number of other similar enactments that a rigorous rule has been prescribed in respect of passing of confidence motion against the head of other local bodies. 12. Section 54 of the Orissa Municipal Act (Act 23 of 1950) provides that a Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Municipality may be removed from office by a resolution of the Municipal Counsel, passed by not less than 23rds of the total number of Councillors, of the Municipality who have given their votes at a special meeting convened for the purpose. Similar provision has been made in Section 34 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act (Act VII of 1922). It says that the Chairman may be removed from his office by a resolution of the commissioners in favour of which not less than 23rds of the whole number of the commissioners have given their votes at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. The Bengal Municipal Act (Act III of 1884) in Sections 23 and 24 also makes similar provision. Section 24 provides that the Chairman may at any time be removed from his office by a resolution of the commissioners in favour of which not less than 23rds of the whole number of the commissioners have given their votes at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. The expression "total number of councillors" appearing in Section 54 of the Orissa Municipal Act or the whole number of the councillors" appearing in Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act or the Bengal Municipal Act, have not been shows to have been construed by way judicial authority. The expression "total number of councillors" appearing in Section 54 of the Orissa Municipal Act or the whole number of the councillors" appearing in Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act or the Bengal Municipal Act, have not been shows to have been construed by way judicial authority. It however, appears from the Collier's Municipal Manual edited by W.S. Minle; 7th Edition, p. 27, where the learned author while referring to the interpretation of the expression "whole number of commissioners" appearing in the Bengal Municipal Act, has stated that the "whole number of commissioners" means the number as fixed by the notification issued u/s 13 and not the number of those who may happen to beholding office at the time. This is the construction which has been placed upon a corresponding provision in the English "Act". Section 13 of the Bengal Municipal Act refers to 'the total number of commissioners to be specified in the notification either at the time of the creation of the Municipality or on a date subsequent to it. In other words, it refers to the actual strength of the Municipality, that is, the total number of commission that constitute the Municipal Council. To my mind, the words "total number of councillors" appearing in the Orissa Act or the "whole number of members" as appearing in the other two Acts convey the same meaning and represent the entire strength of the commissioner or councillors by whatever name they are called. The expression "total number of members having a right to vote" in Section 46-B(1) of the Act is in terms similar to the expression "total number" or ", whole number" appearing in i the aforesaid Municipal Acts and refers to the entire strength of such members. The expression "total number of members" finds place in Article 100(3) of the Constitution says until the Parliament by law otherwise provides, the quorum to constitute a meeting of either Houses of Parliament shall be 110th of the total number of members of the House. For determination of the mode of quorum in the House of People or the Council of State, an illustration has been given in the Basu's well. known Commentary on Constitution, 4th Edition, Vol. For determination of the mode of quorum in the House of People or the Council of State, an illustration has been given in the Basu's well. known Commentary on Constitution, 4th Edition, Vol. II, page 553, where quorum has been worked out at 10th of the total number of membership of the House irrespective of the fact of the actual number of members then on the roll, on the date of the sitting. Where however, reference has been made not to the total number of members, but to the then members as in the case of passing of a resolution of removal from office of the Speaker of the "House, it has said' so in clear and unambiguous terms such as in the case of the Speaker of the House of the People in Article 94(c) and the Speaker of a State Assembly in Article 17J(c) of the Constitution. This position also lends some support to the interpretation given on behalf of the Petitioner that in the absence of any such restrictive provisions in the Act or the Rules, the total number of members having right to vote within the meaning of Section 46-B(1) must mean to refer only to the prescribed total strength of 22 non-official members and not to twenty-one that is the total number of the then members on the Roll as were existed, after the resignation of one of there on the date of the meeting of the Samiti. In view of the aforesaid position and the view I am taking, it is unnecessary to examine th question whether Nityananda Sahu, one of the members of the Betnoti Panchayat Samiti had in fact tendered resignation. on 11-11-1963, that is, prior to the date of the meeting or it was obtained by some manipulation by the B.D.O. as alleged by the Petitioner. The originals of some of these letters were shown to us and some interpolations were also pointed out. But the report of the Collector who conducted the enquiry has not been produced before us. In any event, we do not propose to express any opinion on that matter. The resolution having been passed only by eleven members, who do not constitute the majority of the total number of members having a right to vote, the resolution must be struck down as illegal. 13. In any event, we do not propose to express any opinion on that matter. The resolution having been passed only by eleven members, who do not constitute the majority of the total number of members having a right to vote, the resolution must be struck down as illegal. 13. In the result, the resolution dated 13-11-1963 passing a vote of no-confidence on the Petitioner is quashed, and must be held to be ineffective, and a nullity. A writ may issue on that effect. The Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Hearing fee Rs. 100- (one hundred) only. Ahmad, C.J. 14. I entirely agree with the order passed by my learned brother and also the reasonings given in support thereof. Final Result : Allowed