Judgment : 1. Petitioner is elected as member of the 2nd respondent - Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Channagiri (for short, the 'APMC) in the election held on 01.05.2011. He got elected as President of the 2lld respondent-APMC. in the election held on 01.02,2013. Some of the members of the Committee submitted a. requisition seeking to move a no-confidence motion against the President and Vice-President of the 2nd respondent and made a request to convene a meeting in that regard. A meeting was convened on 07.11.2013 for moving the no- confidence motion against the petitioner. There are totally 17 elected members in the 2nd respondent-APMC who were eligible to vote in the no-confidence motion. 2. As per Section 44(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short the Act), if the motion against the Chairman or the Vice- Chairman or both is carried by a majority of not less than two third of all the then members of the market committee at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman shall forthwith vacate the office of the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman as the case may be. 3. The construction to be laid on the explanation to Sec don 44(2) of the Act which states that 'not less than two third of all the then members' have lo support the motion to remove the President, falls for consideration m this case. 4. In the instant case, out of the 17 members present in the meeting held on 07.11.2013, 11 members have voted in favour of the no-confidence motion and 6 members have not supported the motion. But, the 2nd respondent-APMC has accepted the resolution passed by tfie members holding that it shall be deemed that two third out of 17 members have supported the motion. They have proceeded on the basis that though two third of 17 members would come to 11.33, by the method of rounding off, 11.33 has to be rounded off to 11' as 11' is the nearest larger number to 11.33. 5. It is contended by Mr. Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no provision under the Act to round off the decimal point to the nearest previous digit or the nearest next digit. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has seriously erred in undertaking such an exercise. 5. It is contended by Mr. Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no provision under the Act to round off the decimal point to the nearest previous digit or the nearest next digit. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has seriously erred in undertaking such an exercise. He has placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of REGISTRAR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, BANGALORE VS G.HEMALATHA AND OTHERS - (2012) 8 SCC 568 , to contend that in the absence of any provision in the statute or the Rules framed thereunder permitting rounding off of the decimal point, rounding off cannot be done. He has also placed reliance in this regard on another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER VS RUPASHREE CHOWDHARY AND ANOTHER - (2011) 8 SCC 108 . Taking me through that two judgments, he has contended that in the ligiit of the pronouncement of the Apex Court, the earlier judgment rendered by this Court in the case of SHAMBUGOWDA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - 2000(5) KAR.L.J. 359 cannot be regarded as good law. 6. Mr. H.K.Thimmegowda, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent places strong reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER VS PAWAN KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS - (2005) 2 SCC 10 to support the rule of rounding off which it is urged, has been based on logic and common sense. He has also contended thai; since the question involved in this case pertains to removal of a person from the post of President as he has lost confidence of the required number of members, the principle of rounding off is very much applicable, because the Apex Court ha.s clearly distinguished the application 01 this principle to the posts and vacancies compared to the eligibility criteria in obtaining minimum marks. 7. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the law is pretty much clear that when the legislature has not provided for rounding off of a fraction to the nearest larger number and has specifically stated that not less than two third of the members shall support the no-confidence motion for removal of the President or Vice-President, this Court is required to follow the precedent laid down by the Apex Court and not approve the rounding off method. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the question that arises for consideration in this case is, "In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of REGISTRAR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OFHEALTH SCIENCES, BANGALORE VS G.HEMALATHA AND OTHERS - (2012) 8 SCC 568 , whether the decision of the 2 nd respondent in holding that even if only 1 i members supported the no-confidence motion and although the requisite number of two third out of total 17 members would come to 11.33, by rounding off the fraction to the nearest number 11' petitioner shall be deemed to have removed from his post by two third majority of the total members is correct; particularly m the background of the earlier decision rendered by this Court in the case of SHAMBUGOWDA. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - 2000(5) KAR.L.J. 359 . 9. In Shambugowda's case, in paragraph 11 of the judgment reported in 2000(5) K&r.L.J. 359, this Court has observed as under: " The crucial point for decision now would be, when 11 members of the Committee had carried no- confidence motion against petitioner and this number falling short of only .33 of an individual number to meet the requisite number envisaged in sub-section (2) of Section 44, what is the legal consequence of shortage by this fraction of one complete number. By any yardstick of calculation in such a situation, it is just and reasonable to hold that since this fraction of difference being less than 50% of a full one number, it is desirable to construe and conclude this difference as negligible and will have to be ignored. If this fractional difference were to exceed 50% of one number, then it ought to be calculated and taken into account as one whole number. If this fractional difference were to exceed 50% of one number, then it ought to be calculated and taken into account as one whole number. Since the difference of .33 is liable to be ignored as immaterial consequence, it necessarily follows that 11 members of the Committee who supported the no-confidence motion against petitioner make up 2/3rd of all its member fully satisfying the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference " 10. It is necessary to notice here that we are faced with the same fact situation in this case and the Court is required to interpret the same provision which had fallen for consideration in Shambugouda's case, but, the altered circumstance is the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of REGISTRAR,. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, BANGALORE VS G.HEMLATHA & OTHERS - (2012)8 SCC 568 . In the said case, the Apex Court was considering the question regarding the correctness of the judgment rendered by this Court permitting rounding off the percentage of marks obtained by the student so as to make her eligible for admission to the post graduate course in M.Sc. (Nursing). The question of law involved in the said case as stated in paragraph 3 of the judgment is, whether by applying the principle of rounding off the eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in M.Sc. (Nursing) can bt relaxed? Referring to the previous judgments on the matter and approving the ratio laid down in the case of OPISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS RUPASHREE CHOWDHARY - (2011)8 SCC 108 , the Apex Court has observed in paragraph 12 as under: "12. No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder have been shown to us. which permit rounding off of eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in M.Sc. (Nursing). When the eligibility criteria is prescribed in a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered to. Any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that the learned Single Judge was right in rounding-off of 54.71% to 55% so as to make Respondent-1 eligible for admission to the PG course. Such rounding-of is impermissible." 11. Any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that the learned Single Judge was right in rounding-off of 54.71% to 55% so as to make Respondent-1 eligible for admission to the PG course. Such rounding-of is impermissible." 11. The matter will become further clear if we refer to the case in Orissa Public Service Commission's case. The question involved there was whether rounding off of aggregate marks from 44.93% to 45% was permissible so as to make the candidate eligible for appearing for interview under the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007. Rule 24 of the said Rules provided for minimum marks that had to be obtained by the candidate concerned. The Rule stated that a candidate who has secured not less than 45% of the marks in aggregate could be called for interview. The candidate involved there had secured 44.93%. The High Court permitted the candidate to be called for interview by rounding off the marks obtained by her to 45%. In that context, the Apex Court has, after referring to fhe previous judgments rendered in the cases ol STATE OF ORISSA VS DAMODAR NAYAK - (1997)4 SCC 5(50, STATE OF U.P. VS PAWAN KUMAR TIWARI - (2005)2 SCC 10 , UNION OF INDIA VS S.VINODH KUMAR - (2007)8 SCC 100 , and BHUDEV SHARMA VS DISTRICT JUDGE, BULANDSHAHR - (2008)1 SCC 233 , has observed in paragraph 7 as under: "..On scrutiny, we find that the findings recorded in the above referred cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The facts and findings recorded by this Court in the above referred cases are distinguishable to the facts of the case in hand. Almost all the aforesaid cases dealt with post or vacancies where it was allowed to be rounded off to make one whole post. Understandably there cannot be a fraction to a post." 12. In paragraphs 9 & 10, the Apex Court went on to observt as under: "9. The appointment to the post of Civil Judge (JD) under the Orissa Judicial Services is guided by the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and Rule 24 thereof specifically deals with the criteria for determining of candidates for interview. In paragraphs 9 & 10, the Apex Court went on to observt as under: "9. The appointment to the post of Civil Judge (JD) under the Orissa Judicial Services is guided by the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and Rule 24 thereof specifically deals with the criteria for determining of candidates for interview. Rule 24 reads thus: ' "'24 Determination of number of candidates for interview.- The Commission shall call the candidates for interview who have secured not less than foHu-five per centum of marks in aggregate and a rninimunL of thirty-three per centum of marks in each paper in the main written examination." 10. A bare reading of the aforesaid Rule would make it clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the main examination. When emphasis is given in the Rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks to be obtained by the candidate concerned there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off. There is no power provided in the statute/Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation." (emphasis supplied) 13. Similar is the fact situation in the present case. The provision under Section 44(2) of the Act makes it clear that if the motion against the Chairman is carried by majority of not less than two-thirds of all the then members of the Market Committee, the Chairman shall forthwith vacate the office. The emphasis in the provision is to the votes of the persons who are participating in the motion of no-confidence against the Chairman. The expression used here also is, that not less than two third of all the then members have to support the motion. This expression refers to the members. It has nothing to do with the post or vacancy. The expression used here also is, that not less than two third of all the then members have to support the motion. This expression refers to the members. It has nothing to do with the post or vacancy. The Rule mandates that not less than two third members have to support the no-confidence motion in order to unseat the Chairman. There is no provision for rounding off. If two third out of 17 comes to 11.33 and only 11 members have supported the motion, it cannot be said that not less than two third members have supported the motion. 14. As held by the Apex Court, in the judgment in Orissa Public Service Commission's case, in paragraph 13, when the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous i.e., they art reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences for, the Act speaks for itself. As was the case with Rule 24 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007, which stipulated that the commission shall call the candidates for interview who have secured not less than forty-five per cent of marks in aggregate, in the present case also, the provision under Section 44(2) of the Act uses a similar expression stating that not less than two third of all the then members of the Market Committee have to support the no-confidence motion. 15. The words used in Section 44(2) of the Act, are unambiguous. They are susceptible to only one meaning i.e., a minimum of two third members have to support the no- confidence motion. If two third of 17 comes to 11.33, then 11 will not be the minimum of members required for carrying through the no-confidence motion. There cannot be division of the voter since a human element is involved. In such circumstance, keeping in mind the mandate of the provision which uses the word not less than two third and in the wake of the judgment of the Apex Court, it has to be held that 1 i members cannot constitute two third. It can only be 12 members who can successfully remove the Chairman of the Committee. 16. In such circumstance, keeping in mind the mandate of the provision which uses the word not less than two third and in the wake of the judgment of the Apex Court, it has to be held that 1 i members cannot constitute two third. It can only be 12 members who can successfully remove the Chairman of the Committee. 16. As the judgment in Shambugowda's case is rendered prior to the judgment of the Apex Court, which has made the legal position clear and as the judgment of the Apex Court applies in all force, to the present case, it has to be held that the method adopted by the 2nd respondent in rounding off and holding that 11 in embers would constitute two third of 17 and therefore the petitioner shall stand remove from his post is illegal. 17. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned resolution at Annexure-A is set aside.