VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE first petitioner is the President and the second petitioner is the Vice-President of the respondent-City Municipal Council, chickmagalur (hereinafter referred to as "the Municipal Council" ). ( 2 ) IN these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notice dated 15th of March 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to these petitions, issued by the respondent for convening a special meeting on 24th of March 2000 of the members of the Municipal Council, to consider the motion of want of confidence moved against the petitioners. Since, during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the want of confidence motion moved against the petitioner is passed, the petitioners have also prayed for quashing the said Resolution dated 24th of March 2000 of the Municipal Council. ( 3 ) SRI Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of the prayer of the petitioners that the impugned resolution passed expressing want of confidence against the petitioners is liable to be quashed, made two submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the resolution has not been passed by two-thirds of the total number of members of the Council in terms of sub- section (9) of Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners continue to be the President and Vice President of the municipal Council. Elaborating this submission, he pointed out that two-thirds of the total number of Councillors referred to in sub-Section (9) of Section 42 of the Act, means all the members who constitute the Council in terms of Section 11 (1) (a) (c) and (d) of the Act, In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of the supreme Court in the case of RAEES AHMAD vs STATE OF UTTAR pradesh and also that of this Court in the case of S. SHIVASHANKARAPPA vs DAVANAGERE MUNICIPALITY He also pointed out that two-third of the total number of members of the municipal Council should not be understood as two-third of the total number of members who are present at the meeting of the Council. Secondly, he submitted that five of the nominated members of the council were not served with the notice of the meeting; and, therefore, even if it is held that the said nominated members are not entitled to be considered for the purpose of counting two-thirds of the total number of members in terms of sub-section (9) of Section 42 of the Act and they are not entitled to vote while considering the motion of want of confidence moved against the petitioners, still they are entitled to be served with the notice of the meeting, so that they could express their views in the meeting; and since admittedly the same has not been done, the impugned resolution is vitiated. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, Sri Abdulla, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Council, in response to the contention of Sri narayanaswamy, strongly urged that two-thirds of the total number of the Councillors must be understood as two-thirds of the total number of elected members of the Council in terms of Section 11 (1) (a) of the Act. In support of this submission, he referred to me sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act wherein it is provided that the President and Vice President of the Council are elected from amongst the elected members of the Council. Secondly, he submitted that two-thirds of the total number of Councillors, referred to in subsection (9) of Section 42 of the Act, must be understood as two thirds of the total number of members present in the meeting and not the two-thirds of the total number of members of the Council. Therefore, he submitted that since, out of 27 members of the Council, who were present in the meeting, 21 members had expressed their want of confidence, the petitioners are deemed to have vacated their office in terms of sub-section (9) of Section 42 of the Act. He also pointed out that out of five nominated members, two of the members have resigned and the Government had also directed all the nominated members to resign; and that being the position, five of the members cannot be taken into account while deciding two-thirds of the total number of members of the Council and they are also not entitled fpr the meeting notice. He also pointed out that since one of the members of the Council has expired, the total number of elected members of the Council should be taken only also as thirty. 3. In the light of the rival contentions addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the two questions that would arise for consideration, in these petitions, are- (1) Whether the nominated members of the Municipal Council are required to be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of two-thirds of the total number of members of the Council required to pass motion of want of confidence against the president and the Vice-President of a Municipal Council? (2) Whether the nominated members of the Municipal Council are required to be served with the notice of the meeting convened to consider the motion of want of confidence moved against the president and the Vice president of the Municipal Council? 4. To consider the above two questions, it will be useful to refer to the undisputed facts and the relevant provisions of the Karnataka municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). (a) Section 11 of the Act provides for the constitution of the municipal Council. It is useful to refer to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, which reads as hereunder: " (1) The Municipal Council shall consists of, (a) Such number of directly elected councillors specified in column (3) of the table below in respect of the municipal areas specified in the corresponding entries in-column (2) thereof, namely:-