Honble KOKJE, J–The appellant was elected Chairman of the Municipal Board, Pipar City in an Election held on 29.8.95. There were at that time 25 Wards of the Municipal Board and one member each was elected from these Wards. A no confidence motion was brought by 14 members of the Board on 14.5.97. Under the law a no confidence motion has to be carried by 2/3 majority of the total number of members of the Board. At the meeting at which the no confidence motion was put to vote 15 members voted in favour of the motion expression no confidence against the appellant. An objection was taken at the meeting that two members had lost their membership because of exclusion of their Wards from the Municipal limits on publication of the notification in the extraordinary Gazette in this regard. This objection was up held and those two members were not allowed to vote. The no confidence motion was declared to have failed because 15 members only had voted in favour of the motion which did not constitute 2/3 of total number of the members of the Board which was 23. (2). Smt. Laxmi Kachhawaha and Mohd. Khalid Belim Teli, two members who were disqualified from voting on the ground that their wards had been excluded from the Municipal Limits filed a petition before the learned Single Judge for a declaration that the no-confidence motion against the appellant was duly passed and he was not entitled to continue as Chairman of the Municipal Board. The exclusion of the petitioners from the membership of the Municipal Board was also sought to be quashed. The notification excluding the two Wards from the limits of the Municipal Board was also sought to be declared illegal and quashed. The lear- ned Single Judge allowed the petition and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer declaring that the no-confidence motion had failed and consequently held that the appellant had ceased to hold the office of the Chairman, Municipal Board as the no-confidence motion was validly passed against him. The appellant has challenged this order of the learned Single Judge in this appeal. (3). The appellant has challenged this order of the learned Single Judge in this appeal. (3). It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the two Wards were legally excluded from the limits of the Municipal Board and as a consequence of the notification excluding those Wards the members representing those Wards in the Municipal Board had also validly ceased to hold their office. Thus according to the learned counsel the effective strength of the Municipal Board was 23 and this was expected by the learned Single Judge also. However, the learned Single Judge held that 2/3 of 23 members being 15.33, 15 members would be sufficient for passing the no-confidence motion as a living person cannot be divided into fractions and. 33 of a person cannot be accepted to vote. This view taken by the learned Single Judge is erroneous according to the learned counsel for the appellant. (4). On the other hand Shri K.N. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents supports the view taken by the learned Single Judge and further submits that even he view taken by the learned Single Judge that the effective strength of the Municipal Board was reduced to 23 at the relevant time was wrong. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the notifications issued excluding two Wards from the area of the Municipal Board as also declaring the two members to have vacated their office were invalid. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that on the analogy of the other provisions of the rules a fraction had to be ignored in calculating the number of members required for passing reso- lution as it was not possible to fragment a living person into fractions. (5). To appreciate the controversy it would be necessary and proper to first refer to the provisions of the Municipal Act and the Rules. (6). Section 4 of the Act provides for delimitation of the Municipalities and also provides that the State Govt. may by notification published in the Official Gazette exclude any local area in Municipality and when any local area is excluded from Municipality it may notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any law for the time being in force provide by an order published in the Official Gazette for removal of members who in the opinion of the State Govt. represent the area excluded from the Municipality. represent the area excluded from the Municipality. The learned counsel for the appellant produced for our inspection photocopy of the Official Gazette issued excluding the area and declaring the representatives of the two wards to have ceased to be the members of the Municipal Board. Though the learned counsel for the respondents taking advantage of a misprint in the Gazette notification tried to argue that the notification was not valid but comparing Hindi and English versions of the notification we found that it was a printing error by which instead of 12, 22 was printed as the date of the notification, but because the Hindi Tithi and the day also printed in the notification it is clear that the notification was published on 12th and not on 22nd. There is therefore no doubt that the effective strength of the Municipal Board had reduced from 25 to 23. The only question therefore which would survive for our considera- tion is as to whether 15 members would be taken to constitute 2/3 of 23 for the purpose of deciding whether the no confidence motion could be taken to have been passed or not. (7). The learned counsel for the appellant cited a decision of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court published as a Note in Ram Singh Soni vs. Collector, Raipur (1). In that case also the no confidence motion was to be passed by two-third majority which came to nine and one third as the Panchayat consisted of 14 members. Though the reasoning is not available in the Short Note but it has been clearly held that in such a situation when arithmetically two-third of 14 was nine and one-third and only nine members voted for the motion, the motion had to be taken to have failed and in such a situation only 10 members could have constituted the two-third majority. (8). In Ashok Maniklal Hardut vs. Collector of Amravati (2) a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court was faced with the situation where out of 20 councillors entitled to vote only 13 voted in favour of no confidence motion when two-third of the total number of Councillors was necessary. It was held that when the provision used the expression ``not less than a fraction could not be ignored and anything less even by a fraction would not meet the requirement. It was held that when the provision used the expression ``not less than a fraction could not be ignored and anything less even by a fraction would not meet the requirement. It was therefore held that 13 Councillors were not enough for carrying a no-confidence motion when 13.33 were required. (9). In Alexander vs. Director of Panchayats (3), A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court was considering a provision where 3/5 of the total strength of the Panchayat was required to carry the resolution, the total strength was 9 and 3/5 of 9 arithmetically came to five and two-fifth. It was observed that when in such a situation it was impossible to produce 2/5 of a man the only way there can be five and two-fifth of the human beings is by having 6 persons. (10). In a Single Bench decision of Kerala High Court in K. Ambili vs. The Deputy Director of Panchayats (4), the no-confidence motion had to be passed by more than 1/2 of election members. The total strength of the House being 9 members, 1/2 of that was 4/5. It was held that 5 members will be taken to be half of 9 and since the motion was required to be supported by more than half it would be 6 members alone which would be necessary for carrying the motion. Though it is doubtful whether the view taken is correct but all the same even for calculating 50% of 9,4,5 was rounded off to 5 and not to 4. To that extent this ruling help the appellant. (11). In Shyamapada Ganguly Vs. Abani Mohan Mukharjee (5) a Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that when the provision required not less than 2/3 of the whole number of Commissioners to vote for removing a Chairman or Vice- Chairman the number of votes must not be not less than 2/3 in any event but it may be more than that. 2/3 of 17 is Eleven and one-third and therefore voting by 11 persons would not be enough and at least 12 persons had to vote in favour of the resolution to pass it validly. (12). In Samiruddin Ahmed Vs. 2/3 of 17 is Eleven and one-third and therefore voting by 11 persons would not be enough and at least 12 persons had to vote in favour of the resolution to pass it validly. (12). In Samiruddin Ahmed Vs. S.D.O. Mangaldoi (6) a Divison Bench of Assam and Nagaland High Court held that when the words atleast a minimum of 2/3 of total number of members occur in a provision, when the total sanctioned strength is 13, 2/3 of it would be more than 8 and hence no- confidence motion passed by 8 members is not valied. (13). Section 72 of the Act provides that motion expressing no confidence in the Chairman or the Vice Chairman shall be made and considered in the manner prescribed. The procedure is prescribed by Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No-Confidence against Chairman or Vice Chairman) Rules, 1974. Rule 3(8) of the Rules provides that if the motion is not carried by 2/3 majority of the whole members the motion of no-confidence against Chairman or Vice Chairman as the case may be shall be deemed to have been lost. Sub Rule 9 of Rule 3 provides that if the motion is carried by a majority of 2/3 of whole number of members the motion shall be deemed to have been passed against the Chairman and Vice- Chairman as the case may be and such Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office. Thus Sub-Rule (8) and sub-rule (9) of Rule 3 are corollaries of each other and that makes it doubly sure that the number of supporters of a motion has to be exactly possible as if the number is less than 2/3 arithmatically. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 would operate which specifically declares that if the motion is not carried by 2/3 majority it shall be deemed to have lost. (14). In the case before us the total number of members is 23. Arithmatically 2/3 of 23 is 15.33. If any one tries to argue on the strength of sub Rule (9) of Rule 3 that the motion is taken to be carried by 2/3 majority because. (14). In the case before us the total number of members is 23. Arithmatically 2/3 of 23 is 15.33. If any one tries to argue on the strength of sub Rule (9) of Rule 3 that the motion is taken to be carried by 2/3 majority because. 33 fraction of a person cannot be produced and therefore 15 should be taken as 15.33, the argume- nt will be against the specific provision of sub Rule (8) of Rule 3 as anything less than 15.33 would be less than 2/3 majority and if it is less than 2/3 majority the motion has to be deemed to have been lost. The position therefore, in the Rules applicable in the State of Rajasthan is more specific than the provisions which were considered in the rulings cited hereinabove. We have therefore no doubt that the no confidence motion in the present case has to be taken to have been lost under Sub Rule (8) of Rule 3 of the Rules. (15). An attempt was also made to justify rounding of a fraction to the advantage of supporters of the no-confidence motion by invoking Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules 1994 which provides that if a fraction forms part of the number of seats or offices computed under those rules the number shall be increased to next higher number in case the fraction consisted of half or more and the fraction shall be ignored in case it consisted of less than half. Similar is the provision in Section 9 of the Act. Section 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter called ``the Act) provides for composition of the Municipal Board. Sub Section 3-A, 3-B, 3-C provide for certain proportion of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women belonging to such castes, tribes or classes. The explanation to Section 9 provides for rounding off fractions, it reads as under :- ``Explanation-If a fraction forms part of the number of seats computed under this section, the number of seats shall be increased to the next higher number in case the fraction consists of half or more of a seat and the fraction shall be ignored in case it consists of less than half of a seat. (16). We are not impressed by the argument. (16). We are not impressed by the argument. When the Legislature was alive to the problems of fractions as it has provided in Explanation to Section 9 and the Election Rules it could have provided it in the No Confidence Rules also. As the Legislature thought it fit not to provide for rounding of fraction in the No Confidence Rules it has to be taken that it did not permit rounding of figures so far as the No Confidence Motion Rules are concerned. No-confidence motion is not an ordinary resolution. The Legislature did not permit such resolution to be passed by simple majority. When 2/3 majority was required for passing such a resolution the provision has to be strictly construed to mean not less than 2/3 majority, not even less by a fraction. (17). In view of the aforesaid position in law this appeal has to be allowed and the decision of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside. We allow the appeal, set aside the decision and dismiss the petition. There shall be no order as to costs.