V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE first petitioner is the Adhyaksha, second petitioner is upadhyaksha and other petitioners are nominated members of Town municipal Council, Mudhol. In these writ petitions they are seeking to quash the impugned notice at Annexure-D, dated 30-12-2004 calling for meeting of no-confidence motion against first and second petitioners. ( 2 ) ANOTHER elected member has filed application to implead him as 2nd respondent on the ground that he was one of the signatories for the requisition petition to move no-confidence motion against petitioners 1 and 2. Since he is a necessary and proper party, the application is allowed and the applicant is permitted to come on record as 2nd respondent. ( 3 ) MR. I. G. Gachchinamath, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned notice is bad in law as it is the second no-confidence motion moved within a period of one year from the earlier move made on 12-10-2004 as per Annexure-A. Secondly, it is contended that as is evident from Annexure-C, notices of no-confidence motion are not issued to the nominated members. The decision in Shanthakumar and Another v City Municipal Council, Chickmagalur, 2001 (2) Kar. L. J. 91 : ILR 2000 Kar. 4253 is relied upon wherein it is held that that nominated members of Town Municipal council are entitled for meeting notice of no-confidence motion to be moved against the office-bearers of the Council. He has also placed another decision in Raees Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 2000 SC 583 : (2000)1 SCC 432 in support of his contention that two-thirds majority for passing the resolution of no-confidence against the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha cannot be calculated by excluding nominated members who have no right to vote. ( 4 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of 2nd respondent it is contended that petitioners 3 to 7 being nominated members have no right to vote either in the election or moving the no-confidence motion against the petitioners 1 and 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent justified the impugned action by placing reliance upon the division Bench decision of this Court in Savitri v State of Karnataka and Others, 2003 (6) Kar. L. J. 286 (DB) : ILR 2003 Kar. Learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent justified the impugned action by placing reliance upon the division Bench decision of this Court in Savitri v State of Karnataka and Others, 2003 (6) Kar. L. J. 286 (DB) : ILR 2003 Kar. 4653 (DB) ( 5 ) SO far as the first contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned notice is bad in law as the no-confidence motion is moved within one year from the date of Annexure-A is concerned, this contention is wholly untenable in law and liable to be rejected. The relevant portions of Section 42 (9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short), reads thus.-" (9) Every President and every Vice-President of a Municipal council shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of councillors at a special general meeting convened for the purpose: provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-third of the total number of Councillors and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution: provided further that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any President or Vice-President has been considered and negatived by a Municipal Council, a similar resolution in respect of the same President or Vice-President shall not be given notice of or moved within one year from the date of the decision of the Municipal Council". From the second proviso extracted above, it is clear that no-confidence motion should not be moved within one year from the date such move was made, considered and negatived. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that no-confidence motion notice was issued on 12-10-2004 as per annexure-A. On the basis of the said notice, the Chief Officer of the town Municipal Council has issued notices as per Annexure-B, dated 15-10-2004 to the signatories calling upon them to appear and sign before him on 16-10-2004 in order to confirm their signatures to the notice of requisition to move no-confidence against the petitioners 1 and 2. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that in paragraph 2 of the writ. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that in paragraph 2 of the writ. petitions the petitioners have themselves pleaded as under.-"but, the persons who have moved for the 'no-confidence motion' have not signed the application for 'no-confidence motion' and they were not present. Therefore, the 'no-confidence motion' failed". From this, as per their own admission, it is clear that those who moved the no-confidence motion did not sign and were not present. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of 2nd respondent, at paragraph 5 it is categorically stated that meeting of no-confidence motion was not called for as the signatories failed to appear for verification of their signatures in the notice of requisition for moving no-confidence against the petitioners 1 and 2. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a valid consideration of the move envisaged in the second proviso to Section 42 (9) of the Act. Since the first no-confidence motion moved on 12-10-2004 was not considered and negatived by passing a resolution to that effect as provided under the second proviso, there is no bar for the councillors of first respondent for moving the no-confidence motion against petitioners 1 and 2 under Annexure-D. Hence, Annexure-D is not bad in law and the contention urged in this regard must fail and accordingly is rejected. ( 6 ) SO far as the second contention that notices have not been issued to nominated members is concerned, Section 11 of the Act pertains to constitution of Municipal Councils and sub-section (1) (b) pertains to nominated members. The proviso to Section 11 (1) of the Act reads thus.-"provided that the persons referred to in clause (b) shall not have the right to vote in the meeting of the Municipal Council". Thus, the nominated members have no voting right. When they have no voting right, even if notices are issued to them to participate in the meeting, the result will not change as they cannot cast their vote either in favour or against the no-confidence motion. Hence, non-issuance of notice of meeting to move no-confidence motion against the petitioners 1 and 2 to the nominated members is not fatal. ( 7 ) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Savitri, relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent has held in paragraph 16 as under.-"16. Hence, non-issuance of notice of meeting to move no-confidence motion against the petitioners 1 and 2 to the nominated members is not fatal. ( 7 ) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Savitri, relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent has held in paragraph 16 as under.-"16. There is no merit in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant that non-issuance of notice to MP and MLA and their absence in the meeting has vitiated the proceedings. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel that the term 'councillors'; has been denned under Section 2 (6) of the Act as any person who is legally a member of the Municipal Council or Town panchayat. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Smt. Chandubi and Others v Deputy Commissioner, chitradurga and Others, W. P. No. 12320 of 1997, DD: 10-12-1997, which still holds the field it is clear that for the purpose of Section 42 (9) of the Act in order to quantify the total number of councillors it is only the Councillors who are eligible and entitled for voting whose number has to be considered and the term 'councillor" referred to in Section 2 (6) would only mean "legally elected member and not otherwise" xxxxx. There is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the resolution is not supported by the requisite number of not less than 2/3rd of the total number of Councillors as it is clear from the order of the Division Bench of this Court that in order to quantify 2/3rd number of Councillors it is only the number of Councillors who are eligible and entitled for voting and present at the meeting that has to be taken into account". (emphasis supplied) after extracting the relevant portions of Section 42 (9) of the Act, at paragraph 11 it is held as under:"11. The above said provisions of the Act, with which we are concerned in the present case, regarding requisite majority and as to whether total number of members of the Council should be considered for reckoning such majority had been specifically referred to a Division Bench of this Court in view of the conflicting decisions by learned Single Judge of this Court and the Division bench in Smt. Chandubi's case. After considering the relevant provisions with which we are concerned in the present case the division Bench held that 'councillor in Sections 2 (6) and 42 (9) of the Act means legally elected members and overruled the decision in S. Shivashankarappa v Davanagere City Municipality, davanagere, 1978 (1) Kar. L. J. 448 : AIR 1978 Kant. 140, and answered referred questions as follows: "9. In conclusion answering the reference we hold that: (i) In order to quantify the two-thirds of the total number of councillors, it is only the Councillors who are eligible and entitled for voting which has to be considered and as the nominated members under Section ll (l) (b) of the Act have no right to vote their number has to be excluded; and (ii) the two-thirds of the members for the purpose of 'no-confidence motion is to be from and out of total number of councillors present at the meeting and not the general total number" ". The above decision is rendered by the Division Bench of this Court after proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 2 (6) and amended provision, of Section 42 (9) of the Act by Act No. 31 of 2003 with effect from 20-8-2003. The amended provision reads as under: "amendment of Section 42.-In Section 42 of the principal Act, in sub-section (9 ).- (i) for the words "majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Councillors", the words "majority of the total number of Councillors having voting right and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the Councillors having voting right present and voting" shall be substituted; (ii) in the proviso, for the words "total number of Councillors", the words "total number of Councillors having voting right" shall be substituted". In view of the amended Section 42 (9) of the Act, the grievance of the petitioners has no merit. Insofar as the decisions in Shanthakumar's case and Races case, relied upon by Mr. I. G. Gachchinamath are concerned, the answer is in paragraph 14 in Smt. Savitri's case, the relevant portion is as under.-"14. In view of the amended Section 42 (9) of the Act, the grievance of the petitioners has no merit. Insofar as the decisions in Shanthakumar's case and Races case, relied upon by Mr. I. G. Gachchinamath are concerned, the answer is in paragraph 14 in Smt. Savitri's case, the relevant portion is as under.-"14. The other decisions relied upon by the appellant's Counsel is not helpful to the present case as S. Shanthakumar, is contrary to the Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Chandubi's case and the learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Raees Ahmad's case, which is not applicable as held above". In view of this clear position of settled law, the decisions pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are misplaced and they do not render any assistance to the petitioners. ( 8 ) THE writ petitions are devoid of merit and they are dismissed. --- *** --- .