JUDGMENT : Ramesh Kumar Wattal, Member (Judicial) The instant appeal has been filed on the grounds:- That the appellant is the chairman of the managing committee of The Sainik Co-operative House Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the Society") being duly elected as such unanimously by the members of the Managing Committee of the Society, consisting of seven elected members including the appellant. 2. That the respondents 1 to 4 are also elected members of the Managing Committee of the Society who were having differences of opinion on certain issues being of the view that transfer of plots and shops be allowed under Para 9(d) of the Society rules. This was discussed and it was viewed by the three Directors including the appellant that transfer of Plots/Shops to non-entitled persons is illegal since the plots can only be transferred to people covered under Para 5 of the rules of the Society. However this was not agreed to by the respondent 1 to 4. A legal view was taken from one advocate and a retired judge but both the views were contradictory, hence it was explained that the Managing Committee will not allow transfers to non-entitled persons. Also it was decided that the issue will be placed before the Annual General Body Meeting for final decision which was tentatively scheduled for October 2015. 3. That two enquiries were ordered by the Govt, through Registrar Cooperative Societies to investigate the violations in land use where land meant for parks, service utilities has been converted into residential purposes and commercial activities etc. In order to ensure that full co-operation is provided for effective conduct of enquires, it was decided that all transactions related to transfer of plots/shops will be stopped till the enquiries are over and this was agreed to by all directors and a resolution to this affect was passed on 3.08.2015. However the respondents 1 to 4 were not keen to have the information given to enquiry officer fearing their exposure, since certain illegal transaction of land transfer and their involvement might be revealed along with other previous management committee members. 4. That it is also pertinent to mention that respondents 1 to 3 have been issued Show Cause Notice for recovery of unauthorized sitting fees drawn by them during their previous tenure as directors. These Show' cause notices to directors have been issued by the Registrar Co-op., Deptt. 4. That it is also pertinent to mention that respondents 1 to 3 have been issued Show Cause Notice for recovery of unauthorized sitting fees drawn by them during their previous tenure as directors. These Show' cause notices to directors have been issued by the Registrar Co-op., Deptt. J&K but the enquiry has not been concluded as yet. 5. That since the respondents 1 to 3 were not keen to have the enquiries completed and further to manage the records of the Society to save themselves from the enquiries into their misdeeds connived with respondent no. 4 by taking him into confidence to take over the management of the society. 6. That the respondents 1 to 4 on 10.09.2015 requested for holding a meeting of the Managing Committee on 12.09.2015 although a circular was already issued for a meeting scheduled to be held on 17.09.2015, which respondents 1 to 4 had refused to acknowledge but insisted on a meeting to be held on 12.09.2015 because they had already decided to remove the appellant in connivance with one staff member of the Registrar's office at Jammu. 7. That at the insistence of the respondents 1 to 4, a special meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 12.09.2015 from 11:00 AM onwards. The respondents 1 to 4 informed verbally that they do not support the appellant as chairman where upon the respondents 1 to 4 were explained that as per rules they must move a no confidence motion against the appellant as envisaged under rule 25(3) of Cooperative Societies Rule 2001 but the same was never done. Moreover, they were also explained the rule position i.e. for any" no confidence motion" against the Chairman or Director the same must be passed by ?rd majority, the motion, though never made, stood rejected and this information was passed on to the registrar Cooperative Societies J&K. 8. That the respondents 1 to 4 who had come with a specific plan, however illegally declared Hav. Amar Singh as chairman of the Society without passage of any no confidence motion against the appellant as required under Rule 25(3) of Cooperative Societies Rule 2001. 9. That the respondent no. That the respondents 1 to 4 who had come with a specific plan, however illegally declared Hav. Amar Singh as chairman of the Society without passage of any no confidence motion against the appellant as required under Rule 25(3) of Cooperative Societies Rule 2001. 9. That the respondent no. 1 to 4, then presented a resolution before the Registrar Co-operative Societies J&K alleging therein that a special meeting of the Board/Managing Committee was held on 12.09.2015 where a resolution signed by four members (respondents 1 to 4) has been passed withdrawing their support to the appellant and electing respondent no. 1 as the new Chairman while respondent no. 3 as Joint Chairman. 10. That after going through the rival contentions of the parties, the Registrar Co-operative societies J&K issued a Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2015 calling upon all the members of the Board/Managing Committee of the Society to Show cause within a period of 15 days as to why matter is not settled in accordance with Section 30 of the J&K Co-operative Societies Act, 1989 and further placed the board of Directors of the Society in suspended animation till filling of reply/objections. Copy of the show cause notice is enclosed. 11. That the appellant and all other Members/Directors filed their reply/objections to the show cause notice to the Registrar Co-operative Societies K&K and in terms of the show cause notice, The Registrar Co-operative Societies J&K could have either taken action under section 30 of the J&K Co-operative Societies Act 1989 or dropped the proceedings but the Registrar Co-operative Societies J&K instead of following either of two courses available to him, passed an order dated 30.10.2015 purported to have been passed u/s 70 of the J&K Co-operative Societies Act 1989 at the back of the appellant, in violation of principle of natural justice without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and in violation of the Rule 25(3) of the J&K Co-operative Societies Rules thereby declaring the alleged resolution dated ,12.09.2015 passed by respondents 1 to 4 electing respondent no. 1 as chairman and respondent no. 3 as Joint Chairman as legally valid and further directing that the new management led by respondent no. 1 shall be allowed to function in accordance with law. 1 as chairman and respondent no. 3 as Joint Chairman as legally valid and further directing that the new management led by respondent no. 1 shall be allowed to function in accordance with law. The order dated 30.10.2015 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and actuated with mala fide besides being violative of principle of natural justice and is impugned on following amongst other grounds: i. that the order impugned is contrary to law, facts and rules governing the field as such is liable to be set aside. ii. that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant as such is liable to be set aside. iii. that the order impugned is actuated with mala fide as the Registrar Co-operative Societies has passed the order impugned in an arbitrary manner for some extraneous consideration to confer undue benefit on the respondents 1 to 4 without following the established procedure of law as such the respondent no. 5 is impleaded as party by name since mala fide are attributed to the respondent no. 5. iv. that a bare perusal of the show cause notice shows that the respondent no. 5 was conscious of the rule position that in order to remove the appellant as Chairman of the Society, a no confidence motion is required to be passed by ?rd majority of the total number of the committee members and in present case the total number of members being 7, a no confidence motion was required to be passed by at least 5 members of the Managing Committee but the respondent no. 5 has deliberately ignored the rule position while passing the order impugned and has failed to return. a finding on the only dispute between the committee members as to whether 4 members of the committee can remove the chairman of the Society without passing a no confidence motion supported by ?rd majority and elect a new chairman as such the order impugned is liable to be set aside being bad in law. a finding on the only dispute between the committee members as to whether 4 members of the committee can remove the chairman of the Society without passing a no confidence motion supported by ?rd majority and elect a new chairman as such the order impugned is liable to be set aside being bad in law. v. that the order impugned is contrary to the show cause notice as in terms of the show cause notice, the Registrar Co-operative Societies J&K could have either taken action under section 30 of the J&K Co-operative Societies Act 1.989 or dropped the proceedings but the Registrar Co-operative Societies J&K instead of following either of two courses available to him, passed u/s 70 of the J&K Co-operative Societies Act 1989 at the back of the appellant as no reference was ever pending before the Registrar Co-operative Societies J&K instead as in evident from the contents of the Show Cause Notice and in case the Registrar CO-operative Societies J&K as is evident from the contents of the Show cause Notice and in case the Registrar Co-operative Societies J&K decided to treat the dispute between the parties as reference u/s 70 of the J&K Co-operative Societies Act 1989, he was required to frame the terms of the reference and was under an obligation to issue notice to the appellant of his intention to enter upon the reference to adjudicate the dispute and afford the appellant an opportunity of being heard in the reference. vi. that the order impugned is liable to be set aside on the ground that the directions issued therein are not contemplated by the show cause notice and any action contrary to the proposed action as envisaged by the show cause notice is liable to be set aside. vii. that even the order impugned is self contradictory as the opening lines of the order reads that "This is a reference made to this Arbitration Court by four out of seven Directors of the Sainik Co-operative House Building Society. It is not understandable as to when the respondents 1 to 4 made a reference of dispute for arbitration of respondent no. 5 as before the issuance of the show cause notice, there was no reference pending before the respondent no. It is not understandable as to when the respondents 1 to 4 made a reference of dispute for arbitration of respondent no. 5 as before the issuance of the show cause notice, there was no reference pending before the respondent no. 5 and in case the reference was made after the issuance of the show cause notice, the appellant was required to be put to notice of the same by the respondent no. 5 and the entire proceedings being shrouded by mystery are liable to be set aside. viii. that the respondent no. 5 while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate that the appellant continues to be the Chairman of the Society till date as he has not been removed by a no confidence motion passed by ?rd majority of total members/Directors and there cannot be two chairman of the Society simultaneously. ix. that the order impugned has been passed in a slip shod manner without appreciating the real controversy between the parties which has resulted into failure of justice and instead of protecting the interest of the society has rather given a handle to the respondent 1 to 4 to usurp the property of the society without having any legal authority to act as such. x. that the proceedings were held by the respondent no. 5 at Srinagar at the back of the appellant and the impugned order has been deliberately passed on the last date of closure of the move offices at Srinagar and even no copy of the order has been provided to the appellant and the appellant has managed only an uncertified copy of the order which as per the appellant was not completely legible and was enclosed as such with a prayer for dispensing with the certified copy of the order impugned as the same may not be available until the office of the respondent no. 5 opened in Jammu which would take more than a week. In the end a prayer was made that the appeal be accepted; impugned order dated 30.10.2015 passed by Registrar Co-operative Societies J&K be set aside. On the other side respondents have resisted the appeal on the grounds; i. That the appeal is not maintainable against the order passed by Registrar Co-operative Societies J&K dated 30.10.2015. The same deserves to be rejected out rightly. ii. On the other side respondents have resisted the appeal on the grounds; i. That the appeal is not maintainable against the order passed by Registrar Co-operative Societies J&K dated 30.10.2015. The same deserves to be rejected out rightly. ii. That the appeal is also not maintainable because of non-joinder of necessary parties in the proceedings, because the total elected members of the managing committee are 07, but only 04 board of Directors have been impleaded as party respondents and other two are neither as party nor anything has been pleaded in respect of them by the appellant. iii. That the appellant is not competent to file the present appeal, because the appellant is not the Chairman of the Sainik Co-operative House Building Society. The appeal on behalf of managing committee of the society by the appellant is unsustainable, because the appellant has lost right to sue on behalf of Society as Chairman. iv. That the appellant is stopped from questioning the legality of order dated 30.10.2015, it is submitted that the elections to the Board of Directors of the Sainik Co-operative House Building Society were held on 01.12.2014 in pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the competent authority held elections on 01.12.2014 to elect 07 Board of Directors. The 07 (Seven) elect Board of Directors are as under:- 1. Sh. Amar Singh 2. Maj. Harnam Singh 3. H/Capt. Chuni Lal 4. Narinder Singh 5. Col JBS Sambyal 6. Sh. Bodh Raj 7. Brig (Retd.) S.S. Sambyal The elected Board of Directors assumed their charge on 11.12.2014 and the elected Board of Directors entrusted the duty of Chairman of Sh. S.S. Sambyal because of his rank and Sh. Narinder Singh as Joint Chairman of the Sainik Co-operative House Building Society. It is submitted that managing committee could not work properly because of dictatorship of appellant herein and taking up decision without taking into confidence majority of the board of Directors and in a major decision i.e. in respect of construction of shopping complex within the society the appellant executed a supplementary agreement by changing the basic terms and conditions of the original agreement. The appellant in a secret manner executed the supplementary agreement in court itself without taking into confidence either the Board of Directors or secretary of the society. The same was executed by the appellant in a secret manner for extraneous considerations. The appellant in a secret manner executed the supplementary agreement in court itself without taking into confidence either the Board of Directors or secretary of the society. The same was executed by the appellant in a secret manner for extraneous considerations. It is submitted that there was lot of resentment and unrest with the members of the society. The attitude of the appellant created panic and uncomfortableness among the members which also hampered departmental work of the society. The appellant had no time to sit in the office of the society to attend the grievances of the members and always remained terribly busy with the organisations where the appellant is also working as vice president with Ex Serviceman league which have similar job and functions as that of present society. Para wise reply submitted without prejudice to the preliminary objections:- 1. That the contents of para no. 1 are denied because the appellant is not the chairman of the Sainik Co-operative House Building Society. 2. That the contents of para no. 2 is a matter of record, but it is denied that the majority of Board of Directors had any difference of opinion with the appellant, it is self created opinion of appellant because the appellant never wanted to work for the development of the society. It is submitted that opinion of advocate was sought in respect of transfer of plots only on the asking of the appellant. It is denied that ever any decision was taken to place the issue of transfer of plots before annual general meeting. It is submitted that the business and functions of the society are to be regulated through its bye-laws as the bye-laws are backbone of the society. The bye-law 9 (d) provides for transfer of plots. The said bye-law has also been approved by the competent authority i.e. Registrar Co-operative societies vested with the powers under 1989 Rules of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. 3. That the contents of para no. 3 are admitted to the extent that enquiries have been ordered by the Govt, but it is denied that the majority of board of Directors including four arrayed as respondents in the appeal has ever shown cold shoulder to the holding of the inquiry and providing information to the inquiry officer. It is humbly submitted that it is a different issue whether inquiry which has been ordered by the Govt. It is humbly submitted that it is a different issue whether inquiry which has been ordered by the Govt. is maintainable or not because the Govt., has no power to order inquiry into the affairs of any Co-operative Society under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and rules. It is further submitted that the pleadings and opinion of the appellant are imaginary and self created without any legal basis. 4. That the contents of para no. 4 is a matter of record and anything contrary to the record pleaded in the appeal is denied. 5. That the contents of para no. 5 are vehemently denied being false, baseless and contrary to record. The appellant has tried to tarnish the image of majority of Board of Directors including the respondent arrayed in the appeal. 6. That the contents of para 6 it is submitted that majority of Board of Directors vide their communication dated 25-08-2015 withdrew their support with a copy to Sh. S.S. Sambyal and copy forwarded to the Registrar Co-operative Societies J&K at Srinagar, however despite withdrawal of support by the majority of Board of Directors neither a meeting was convened nor any steps were taken to remove the confusion and misunderstandings. It is submitted that in respect to communication dated 25.08.2015, the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies (Agri) Jammu vide his communication no. DERJ/741-43 dated 09.09.2015 addressed to the secretary of the Society communicated to the Board of Directors about the concern worthy Registrar Co-operative Societies J&K, Srinagar. The letter impressed upon the Board of Directors to sort out the issue as per the law the 04 Board of Directors on 10.09.2015 requested the secretary SCHBS to convene a special Board meeting on 12.09.2015 in the backdrop of communication dated 9.9.2015 addressed by the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society (Agri) Jammu. It is further submitted that Secretary of the society instead of acting upon the request holding of special board meeting processed h is case to avail leave from 11.09.2015 to 18.09.2015 with the sanction and approval of Sh. S.S. Sambyal appellant herein. It is submitted that on the same day Sh. S.S. Sambyal appointed one Board of Director Sh. Bodh Raj as secretary for the said period in officiating capacity and for all practical purposes Sh. S.S. Sambyal appellant herein. It is submitted that on the same day Sh. S.S. Sambyal appointed one Board of Director Sh. Bodh Raj as secretary for the said period in officiating capacity and for all practical purposes Sh. Bodh Raj functioned as Secretary which otherwise he could not have and also sought progress report from the contractor engaged in the construction of shopping complex. It is submitted that on 11.09.2015 the then joint Chairman Sh. Narinder Singh again requested officiating secretary to convene special board meeting on 12.09.2015, however on 12.09.2015 all the Board of Directors were present in the office of the Society Sh. Amar Singh came to be elected by majority of Board of Directors. Sh. S.S Sambyal present in the meeting did not sign the resolution and similar is the case of Sh. Bodh Raj who had been working as officiating Secretary. Sh. JBS Sambyal during the meeting walked away. It is denied that the majority of Board of Directors had any notice for holding of meeting on 17.09.2015. 7. That in reply to the contents of para no. 7 it is respectfully submitted that the appellant had notice of holding of meeting on 12.09.2015, however it is denied that any rule position was discussed in the meeting. The quorum to hold the meeting on 12.09.2015 was complete. 8. That the contents of para no. 8 are denied being incorrect and self created opinion of the appellant. 9. That the contents of para no. 9 are admitted being matter of record. 10. That the contents of para no. 10 are also admitted being matter of record. 11. That in reply to the contents of para no. 11 it is submitted that the appellant filed caveat petitions to defend the show cause notice/order of Registrar Co-operative societies in Hon'ble High Court and Learned Special Tribunal Jammu against the majority of Board of Directors and respondents no 1 to 4 in the present appeal. It is further submitted that the appellant was happy with the order of Registrar where by the Registrar before invoking the powers u/s 30 of the Co-operative Societies Act wanted to suppress the managing committee and had also kept the management committee of the Society in suspended animation. It clearly means that by supporting the order of Registrar dated 15.09.2015 the appellant had virtually given up the claim against the post of Chairman. It clearly means that by supporting the order of Registrar dated 15.09.2015 the appellant had virtually given up the claim against the post of Chairman. It is submitted that had the appellant been aggrieved of losing the post of Chairman he would have questioned the legality of order dated 15.09.2015 before appropriate forum but the appellant remained satisfied and being a silent spectators supported the order of Registrar dated 15.09.2015. it is further submitted that on date of issuance of order dated 15.09.2015 the new chairman had already taken over. It is submitted that even the appellant did not question his ouster before any appropriate forum and now the appellant is stopped from taking resort to rule 25 (3) of the Co-operative Societies Rules 1989, It is further submitted that appellant himself has requested for dissolution of managing committee of the society and once the Registrar has put that managing committee in place now the appellant wants to become the chairman of the society. It is denied that opportunity of being heard to the appellant has not been provided, the order of Registrar impugned in the appeal is self explanatory, the issue has been discussed threadbare by the Registrar in order dated 30.10.2015. The appellant has arrayed Registrar as party by name only because the Registrar has not agreed with the suggestions of appellant for dissolution of managing committee of the Society. 12. That the grounds pleaded by the appellant are legally not sustainable in the eye of law, however in order to avoid repetition and wastage of precious time of the Hon'ble Court the reply in the main appeal may also be read reply to these grounds also. It is submitted that the respondents reserves the right to plead more grounds at the time of hearing seeking rejection of the appeal. 13. It is submitted that the respondents reserves the right to plead more grounds at the time of hearing seeking rejection of the appeal. 13. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant is the duly elected Chairman of the Managing Committee and respondents who are only four in numbers have got no authority whatsoever to move a resolution for no confidence motion against the petitioner which under law is required to be supported by two third majority and out of the 7 members the number comes to 4.66 which rounds to five and respondent being four could under no circumstances desist the petitioner from the post of Chairman and, as such, the order of the respondent Registrar, Cooperative Society is illegal, null and void improper and wrong exercise of jurisdiction as the Registrar had no authority to pass the order of termination of the appellant as Chairman of the Committee and order dated 30-10-2015 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, violative of principle of natural justice, contrary to law and, as such, the same be set aside. 14. He has also argued that the Registrar Cooperative Societies issued show cause notice wrongly to the petitioner and no reasonable opportunities of being heard to meet the resolution of the respondents was given to the appellant. 15. He has further submitted that as regards the objections of the respondents counsel even if the appeal is not maintainable and still the contention of the respondents that the same cannot be accepted as the court has got ample powers to convert the appeal into revision and revision into appeal whereas the circumstances requires the same. 16. He has produced the authorities of different High Courts on this point which are as referred to in subsequent paras. 17. He has also submitted that what matters is the source of powers and not the pleading if the Tribunal has got the powers to exercise jurisdiction and give relief, it can convert an appeal into revision and vice versa. 18. He has further submitted that the dispute has arose between the appellant and the respondents when the respondents committed irregularities in allotment of plots meant for the benefit of ex-serviceman. 18. He has further submitted that the dispute has arose between the appellant and the respondents when the respondents committed irregularities in allotment of plots meant for the benefit of ex-serviceman. He has also contended that respondents committed bungling in allotment of plots and also the sites and withdrew the amount which they were not entitled under law i.e. on account of respondents become aware to the appellant and in collusion with the authorities below they manipulated a plan to oust the appellant so that their follies and misdeed may not get exposed and they may enjoy the benefit illegally. 19. The counsel has further submitted that the Tribunal is already in seizure of the records which is being examined and there is no illegality in its jurisdiction to exercise the powers to pass the appropriate order under law. 20. Arguing on the point that the fraction cannot be ignored while counting the number of votes. He has argued that there are number of authorities including full bench, three judges bench of the court which shows that when there is a fraction the same has to be counted as a whole to the number. 21. He has also submitted that fractions even if less than five has been construed to be to the nearest number as per the authority of 2014 1 RCR Page 100, Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case where there was elections of members of marketing committee and out of total numbers counting 15, 14 participated 9 supported 2/3 of majority came to 1.33 and it was construed to be as a whole. 22. It has also been submitted that the respondents was wrong in stating that no confidence motion should have been challenged since no confidence motion was not required to be challenged because it was never passed and the motion failed them and they took the dispute to the Registrar. Failed resolution has no sanctity under law and proposed section u/s 30 cannot be held to be valid. 23. That after issue the show cause notice the order was passed at the back of the appellant and there was no reference before Registrar and he is silent about no confidence motion. Failed resolution has no sanctity under law and proposed section u/s 30 cannot be held to be valid. 23. That after issue the show cause notice the order was passed at the back of the appellant and there was no reference before Registrar and he is silent about no confidence motion. He has further submitted that the Chairman was also having a vote in his own right in case of tie he would be entitled to cast an additional vote by way of casting vote. 24. The appellant has also argued that there is proper method for the election, selection and removal of Chairman and the same was not followed. 25. He has also argued that there were powers under CPC to the Tribunal which could convert appeal into revision and the court cannot go to the hyper technicalities which will led to miscarriage of justice. 26. It has also been submitted that there was no chaos in the management as urged by the respondents and the arguments of the respondents that he should have challenged the show cause notice and no confidence motion is not tenable. 27. He has also submitted that there are number of authorities of different High Courts and Apex Courts which give inherent powers to the Tribunal which can suo moto exercise the powers of revision as has been court of record since a finality is attached to its order. 28. It has also been submitted that even if the court dismisses the petition in the form of an appeal then nothing will prevent the appellant from moving fresh petition and even the limitation can be condoned for the appellant having chosen the wrong remedy even if it is presumed to be so. 29. He has also submitted that law is justice with reasons and inherent powers is not required for correcting procedural irregularities or things even if it can be stated that Tribunal lacks inherent powers. 30. He has also argued that though the respondent has tried to make a distinction between forum of Accountability Commission and powers of this Tribunal. Accountability Commission is only a recommendatory authority which can only recommend action against govt. body. The Tribunal is a Judicial Authority to whose decision finality is attached. It has got suo moto powers even if CPC is non-applicable still Tribunal can devise its own procedure. 31. Accountability Commission is only a recommendatory authority which can only recommend action against govt. body. The Tribunal is a Judicial Authority to whose decision finality is attached. It has got suo moto powers even if CPC is non-applicable still Tribunal can devise its own procedure. 31. That under (sic) which is the remedy and not the relief provision, Registrar was empowered to hold, suspend or remove and since there was consensus therefore as an unbiased Officer Registrar should have convened General Body meeting to decide what should be done. 32. Moreover even if it is so still, the judgment of Single Judge has been challenged before D.B. The D.B. has heard LPA for 2 months and probably the judgment will come next week. 33. Allegations of the respondent that the appellant was arrogant and dictator is not correct. Since the appellant was elected for the first time and enquiry was going against the respondent. The appellants proposed holding general body meeting. What wrong was there committed by the appellant is not understandable. 34. He has also submitted that rule 20 of Special Tribunal Rules empowers the Tribunal to do all things necessary for discharging duty under the Act which includes exercise of incidental and ancillary powers to discharge its function. He has further submitted that general body is supreme authorities and enquiry was going on against the respondents for embezzlement and recovery, notices were issued, but, instead of looking to that aspect the appellant has been de seated and terminated illegally. It has also stated that the options with the Registrar was to go to the General Body meeting which has not been done in the case, even if, there was confusion or chaos. 35. Counsel for the appellants has produced the following authorities:- Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab 2012(4) PLR 323, Punjab and Haryana High Court. Tanaji Bhauso Mane v. Ushatai Balkrushna Mane (Bombay) 2013 (5) BCR 15 : 2013 (6) Mh. LJ 467 : 2013 (5) ALL MR 604, Bombay High Court. Vijay Kumar Saluja v. Deputy Commissioner Karnal, 1992 (1) 11.R.R. 56 : 1991 PLJ 635 : 1991 (2) RLR 572 : 1992 (1) LJR 556. Punjab and Haryana High Court. Ashok v. Collector of Amravati (Bombay) (At Nagpur) 1988 (2) BCR 399: 1988 AIR (Bombay) 207:1987 (89) Bom LR 637: 1988 Mh. LJ 378: 1988 MahLR 952 Bombay High Court. Vijay Kumar Saluja v. Deputy Commissioner Karnal, 1992 (1) 11.R.R. 56 : 1991 PLJ 635 : 1991 (2) RLR 572 : 1992 (1) LJR 556. Punjab and Haryana High Court. Ashok v. Collector of Amravati (Bombay) (At Nagpur) 1988 (2) BCR 399: 1988 AIR (Bombay) 207:1987 (89) Bom LR 637: 1988 Mh. LJ 378: 1988 MahLR 952 Bombay High Court. State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari, 2005 (2) SCC 10 Babulal Nagar v. Shree Synthetics Ltd., 1984 (sup) SCC 128 G.L. Vijain v. K. Shankar, 2006 (13) SCC 136 P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham, 2009 (9) SCC 173 Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Datttatraya Bapat, 1969 (2) SCC 74 Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, 2008 (7) SCC 663 Abdul Samad Mir v. Abdullah Mir (J&K) 2012 (3) JKJ 58 [HC] 58 : 2012 SLJ 626 Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Haleema Bano v. Hajira (J&K) 2013 (1) JKJ 239 [HC] Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Sharma Ice Factory v. Jewel Ice Factory, (J&K) (D.B) 1975 AIR (J&K) 25 Jammu and Kashmir High Court. 36. In view of the grounds taken in the appeal, the arguments advanced a prayer has been made that the appeal be accepted and the order under appeal be set aside. 37. The counsel for the respondents has strenuously argued that appeal of the appellant is incompetent/invalid and same should have been dismissed at the threshold. 38. The counsel for the respondent has based his contention on the grounds that under Cooperative Society Act and the rules made there under, it is only the Cooperative Tribunal which has got the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and u/s 157, 158 and 159 appeals has to be filed before Cooperative Tribunal alone. J&K Special Tribunal is not a Co operative Tribunal and therefore it has got no jurisdiction to decide any appeal under Cooperative Society Act as the same is not maintainable. The Tribunal lacks the appellate jurisdiction. 39. He has further argued that the Cooperative Tribunal is not constituted as yet as per the rules under J&K Cooperative Societies Act so this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal. 40. He has further submitted that once an appeal is not maintainable there is no law under which this Tribunal has got the powers to convert an appeal into a revision. 41. 40. He has further submitted that once an appeal is not maintainable there is no law under which this Tribunal has got the powers to convert an appeal into a revision. 41. He has further argued that if the appellant has conceded that appeal is not maintainable then what prevents him from withdrawing the same and what comes in the way of the court to dismiss the same. 42. The counsel has also argued that it does not merely on asking of the appellant that this court can entertain an appeal and convert the same into the revision. The procedure for appeal and revision are different and the court cannot entertain an appeal not maintainable before it. It has got no power to convert appeal into revision. He has also argued that this court does not have inherent powers under CPC to convert appeal into revision or vice versa. 43. Moreover, maintainability and entertain ability are two different things if appeal was entertain able and not maintainable the matter is different. Here in this case the appeal is neither entertain able nor maintainable therefore not convertible. The appeal lies before Cooperative Tribunal and it is Cooperative Tribunal alone which can convert an appeal into a revision. Here for a are different, as such, no conversion is possible since appeal could not have come before the government so the same cannot be converted into revision Rule 5 of the rules is mandatory. 44. This Tribunal also lacks suo moto powers and it cannot suo moto convert an appeal into a revision. The respondents counsel has also contended that it has been held by various courts that Tribunal is a statutory authority and not a court which only can convert appeal into revision under inherent powers and not the Tribunal. 45. Citing various authorities of different High Courts. He has submitted that even the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in Single Bench ruling declared that the Accountability Commission lacks suo moto powers to take cognizance in any matter and hear the Court Tribunal cognizance issue, it has got no powers to suo moto convert an appeal into revision and revision into appeal. 46. The respondent has also attacked the appellants, challenge, thrown to the order of ouster of the appellant who has no support now. 46. The respondent has also attacked the appellants, challenge, thrown to the order of ouster of the appellant who has no support now. He has further argued that dispute between the appellants and the respondents arose because the appellant during his Chairmanship did not take into confidence the respondents in different welfare measures for Sainik Cooperative Society. He has further argued that the appellant was guilty of bye passing the procedure in allotment of commercial sites and development of colony who entered into agreement with construction companies exclusively against the interest of the Cooperative Society ignoring the mandate and by behaving as an authoritarian. 47. He has further argued that appellant behaved in a dictatorial manner by acting unilaterally without taking into confidence the other Directors of the Board i.e. respondents. 48. Touching the merits of the case the respondent counsel has further argued that the action of the Registrar was in accordance with the rules and bye laws and when the functioning of the appellant was not in accordance with the mandate who behave arrogantly by taking decision himself without taking into confidence other Directors in allotment of shopping complex etc it was not possible for the respondents to go with the appellant in managing the affairs of the Societies and 4 of the Directors out of 7 withdrew the support and majority was against the appellant No.01. The appellant has not approached the court with clean hands who has twisted facts by producing incomplete documents. The Registrar Cooperative has acted in the expected manner after the 4 of the Directors withdrew the support, The Director issued show cause notice to the parties and the appellants have not challenged the notice nor resolution. Appellants have come to the court to show that 2/3 of 7 comes to 4.6 and 4.6 can be rounded to 5 and this argument is absurd. It is not the marks in the examination which are to be totaled to next number or the money which is to be accounted and it is only the vote which could be either 4 or 5 and since 4 constituted the majority the appellant have to yield before the democratic process and cannot take refuge on hyper technicalities which will lead to miscarriage of justice. 49. 49. Besides even if the 2/3 majority has to be construed then 4 have voted against the 2 out of 6 as the Chairman has only a casting vote in case of tie who is not entitled to cast vote for himself. 50. Since 4 are with the respondents, therefore, they constituted 2/3 majority out of 6 and on this analogy also the appellant has got no case. It has also been urged by the respondent counsel that the appellants has himself admitted that they have lost majority by recommending General Body meeting. 51. He has also raised the question of competence of the appellant to recommend for dissolution of the Board as he had lost the majority and he could not recommend any suspension or dissolution as he was defeated and had come into minority. 52. He has also argued that if the appellant had no majority to rule then how could he continue with minority and recommend dissolution. He has also argued that a lot of money, time and energy has been exhausted in conducting the election of the societies which took years together that too after a long drawn litigation. There is no grounds left with the appellants to show as to how the appellants could recommend General Body meeting which will involve a lot of expenditure and energy. 53. The respondents has also argued that after the show cause notice were issued;on reference the Registrar came to know that the appellant had lost the majority who have had been reduced into minority and there was chaos in the management and the Registrar also intended to settle the same who invoke section 30 for settlement of the same by pressing section 70 into service who gave the reasonable opportunities of being heard by resorting to principle of natural justice and equality of rules and under these scenario where it was mandatory for the Registrar to go for fresh election in these circumstances. 54. Though bye law are silent as regards removal, the Registrar acted in the manner which he was supposed do. In no confidence motion Secretary was on leave. The appellant Retd. Brigadier Sambyal sanctioned leave in his favour who knew that his support stood withdrawn and he thought Secretary to be sent on leave deliberately and there was no possibilities that they should have gone together. In no confidence motion Secretary was on leave. The appellant Retd. Brigadier Sambyal sanctioned leave in his favour who knew that his support stood withdrawn and he thought Secretary to be sent on leave deliberately and there was no possibilities that they should have gone together. In democratic process larger group have to prevail as the person in minority could not continue himself holding the Chair so resolution passed on 09th September show cause notice was issued on 15th September and reply was also entertained and thereafter order passed. 55. The counsel for the respondents has produced the following authorities:-Madhya Pradesh High Court, Om Prakash and Ors. v. Dwarka Prasad and Anr., on 25th August, 2004, Equivalent citation: AIR 2005 MP 40 . Madhya Pradesh High Court, Food Corporation of India and Anr. v. Munnilal Singh and Anr. On 15th July, 2002, Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 MP 66 , 2003 (4) JCR 320 MP. Supreme Court of India, Chittaranjan Crochet (P) Ltd v. Lakshmoni Dass on 5 May, 1993, Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC, Suppl. (1) 101. Madras High Court, Varada Iyengar v. Ramudu on 23 August, 1982, Equivalent citations: (1983) 2 MLJ 517 . Jammu High Court, Mohinder Singh and Anr. v. Whether the Accountability Commission, on 4 January, 2013. [ 2013 (1) JKJ 1 [HC]] Supreme Court of India, Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury on 5 December, 1961, Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 698, 1962 SCR Suppl. (1) 933. 56. Thus the appellant's ouster from Chairmanship is valid under law and the appeal or revision as the case may be does not hold any merit in it which should be dismissed and a prayer is made accordingly for dismissal of the same. 57. I have perused the pleadings of the parties, have gone through the record and have also heard the parties at length. I have also perused the authorities cited by the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the law on the subject. 58. While dealing with the; controversy in question, at the very first stage, the preliminary contentions raised by the respondents counsel are required to be dealt with before the court comes to the conclusion as to whether there is any merit in the appeal or not and whether the same should be accepted or rejected. 59. The main thrust of the respondents counsel is that the appeal is not maintainable. 59. The main thrust of the respondents counsel is that the appeal is not maintainable. This court is not Tribunal constituted under the Act and Rules of the J&K Cooperative Society Act so the same cannot decide the appeal. 60. It is one of the ground on which the jurisdiction of this court had been challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 23-12-2015 while disposing of the same directed this court to dispose of the preliminary objection of maintainability of appeal raised by the respondents. 61. So far as the law on the subject is concerned u/s 158 of Cooperative Society Act the appeal can lie before Cooperative Appellate Tribunal which shall consist of three Members possessing the requisite qualification as per section 157 of the Act ad this Tribunal is not constituted as yet under tho rule and section 6 (2) of Special Tribunal Act 1988 read with rule 25 of Special Tribunal Rules. This Tribunal cannot decide the substantial question of law as under:- 62. Under Rule 52 of Special Tribunal Rule, the same shall be decided by Full Bench of the Tribunal consisting of at least the Chairman and two Members and this Tribunal has not the constitution as per the requirement of Cooperative Society Act and the rules made there under which divest this court of exercising jurisdiction as a Cooperative Tribunal. 63. This was position was conceded by the counsel for the appellant as is reflected in order of this Court dated 11-01-2016 and the question left for determination is as to whether this Tribunal has got the powers to convert an appeal into a revision and decide the same. The counsel for the parties have cited different judgments and while counsel for the appellants has urged that this court has got the powers to covert an appeal into revision and this Tribunal has inherent powers to do the same, the counsel for the respondents has strenuously registered the submission made by the appellant's counsel that the court lacks jurisdiction to convert appeal into revision and also the inherent power to exercise the jurisdiction in this behalf. So far as the position as envisaged under law is concerned the same has been settled by Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in case of Dinesh Gupta v. Citizen Cooperative Bank Limited and others. 64. So far as the position as envisaged under law is concerned the same has been settled by Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in case of Dinesh Gupta v. Citizen Cooperative Bank Limited and others. 64. In this case, the question before the court was as to whether the Tribunal has the revisional jurisdiction to exercise the powers under revision to decide a petition arising out of the order passed by the Registrar Cooperative under J&K Cooperative Society Act. 65. In para 4 of the Judgment it was observed that "Registrar Cooperative Society has got the jurisdiction that anybody aggrieved of the order passed by the Registrar Cooperative in this arbitration proceeding can redress his grievances by filing of an appeal or revision before the Cooperative Tribunal or by filing revision before the Government. By giving into force of J&K Special Tribunal Act, revision which was filed before the Government as now to be filed before the Tribunal created under J&K Special Tribunal Act. Section 157 provides for creation of Cooperative Appellate Tribunal and as per section 158 of Cooperative Society Act and appeal against the order of Registrar lies before the Cooperative Tribunal, but since no Cooperative Tribunal has been constituted as yet, therefore, any person aggrieved of the order of Registrar has a remedy u/s 160 of Cooperative Society Act by filing revision petition . This Tribunal has no appellate powers neither original jurisdiction in entertaining any petition u/s 70 of the Act but has only the revisional powers as provided u/s 160 referred to above". 66. Thus u/s 160 of the Cooperative Society Act this Tribunal has, therefore, got the jurisdiction which is revisional jurisdiction and the court can correct the legality or excess if any committed under Cooperative Society Act by exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 160 of J&K Cooperative Society Act. 67. As regards the question of conversion of appeal into revision, the parties do not seems to be at any variance as regard the authority of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Food Cooperation of India Limited v. Munnilal Singh & others dated 15-07-2002 citation AIR 2003 M.P. 66 . In this case the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. was of the view should the revisional court could convert revision into a appeal and vice versa. In this case the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. was of the view should the revisional court could convert revision into a appeal and vice versa. But counsel for the respondents have submitted that appeal could not be converted into revision and both are governed by different procedure and this court lacks the inherent powers which can be exercised by ordinary Civil Court. He has not only contended that the appeal being not maintainable the same should have been dismissed but also argued that any absence of any formal application a prayer of treating the appeal as revision cannot be granted. 68. This Tribunal is a statutory authority constituted under J&K Special Tribunal Act, 1988 and for that matter it is true that every Tribunal is a statutory authority under Special Act but the development of Administrative law and Tribunalization is a trend the object of which was to check the excesses of administrative authorities i.e. why the Tribunal are quasi judicial authorities exercising judicial powers. 69. There are different authorities where it has been observed that Tribunals while discharging the judicial function exercise jurisdiction which emanates from the sovereign power of the State under which the statutory Tribunal are constituted and on these grounds the Tribunals have the trappings of a court as was also held in as Cheru Ouseph v. Kunjipathumma on 13 March, 1981 AIR 1981 Ker 266 , Cauvery water dispute case. While discharging statutory functions as per the above authorities the Limited exercise of inherent powers by Tribunal has not been shown to be bad in law. 70. Therefore, after going through the law on the subject and looking to the merits and purport of development administrative law and object of Tribunalization of law excluding jurisdiction of Civil Court, divesting a Tribunal from exercising inherent powers for limited purpose of coming into action and exercising jurisdiction where it has got the powers to do so will not be opposed to law relating to the statutory authorities which have got sovereign sanction in discharging quasi judicial function. 71. What matters is not the form but contents of a pleading. Be it either appeal or revision, but, it is in fact the substance which the Tribunal needs to look into to decide a question of law or substantial question of law of public importance. 72. 71. What matters is not the form but contents of a pleading. Be it either appeal or revision, but, it is in fact the substance which the Tribunal needs to look into to decide a question of law or substantial question of law of public importance. 72. Despite the argument of respondents counsel that this Tribunal is a statutory authority as is the Accountability Commission and Single Judge Hon'ble High Court has held in Accountability Commission case that it has got no suo moto powers to take cognizance and so this Tribunal on these premises has also no authority to exercise inherent powers now, the fact is that order of Single Judge in Accountability Commission case decided by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K on 04-01-2013 has been set aside by D.B. Judgment of Hon'ble High Court holding that Accountability Commission has got to exercise jurisdiction suo moto. 73. In this case otherwise also it is the memorandum of appeal which in substance if taken in view, involves the question of law which merits to be decided by exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the same does not mean that the jurisdiction is being exercised suo moto but it is on the basis of the proceedings instituted before this court, the contents of which warrant exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 74. It will not be proper under the circumstances to direct the appellant to withdraw the appeal and then redraft in the form of revision and again present it before this court on the premises that the court has got the revisional jurisdiction and not the appellate jurisdiction and can exercise it on the revision application drafted in the form of revision without taking care of the substance of the same which will not change by adopting merely a different procedure. 75. Thus, in view, of the aforementioned backgrounds, the appeal is hereby treated as revision and the appellant as the petitioners before the court for disposal of the revision petition. 76. 75. Thus, in view, of the aforementioned backgrounds, the appeal is hereby treated as revision and the appellant as the petitioners before the court for disposal of the revision petition. 76. Now, as regards, the merits of the case, the counsel for the petitioners on the one hand had urged before this court that the respondents have been in the Society for 15 to 20 years and after the petitioner became the Chairman it came to fore that respondents have committed illegalities against whom enquiries were pending and recovery proceedings for illegal benefits were also being initiated and the respondents have been guilty of allotting the plots to outsiders and non entitled persons against the spirit of welfare of the person for which the Cooperative Society has come into existence. 77. The respondents have on the other hand urged that the petitioners have not been properly functioning and discharging the duties of the Cooperative Society fairly and honestly. 78. Citing the example, it has been submitted that petitioner has drafted a supplementary deed being for development of commercial sites of the Sainik Welfare Society without the consent of Directors .It has also been urged that the; petitioner has adopted a dictatorial attitude and authoritarian behaviour towards the respondents groups of Directors. It has also been urged that some genuine persons have been ignored. 79. There are allegations and counter allegations by the parties against each other. 80. This court in its revisional jurisdiction does not incline to adjudicate upon the merit s of allegations and counter allegations and this is not a final arbitrator to decide the claims and counter claims urged before this court in this regard. 81. This court, therefore, confines itself only to the legality of order passed by the Registrar Cooperative Society. 82. There are 7 Directors and the petitioners had unanimously been elected as Chairman. 83. It is admitted that a minimum of 2/3 majority of the Directors is required for moving a resolution for no confidence motion for withdrawal of support. 84. The petitioners have submitted that the requisite majority did not support the no confidence motion while as the respondents have submitted that the requisite 4 Directors were sufficient to constitute 2/3 majority and in case of tie only the Chairman has a casting vote which he could not avail as a Member/Director of the Society. 85. 84. The petitioners have submitted that the requisite majority did not support the no confidence motion while as the respondents have submitted that the requisite 4 Directors were sufficient to constitute 2/3 majority and in case of tie only the Chairman has a casting vote which he could not avail as a Member/Director of the Society. 85. So far as the chronological of happening leading to dispute between the parties is concerned it is admitted that the Chairman had been elected after the vote of Directors, assumed the charge on 11-12-2014. 86. Same was in consequence of the election held on 01-12-2014. 87. After the dispute between the Directors a special meeting of the Board was called on 12-09-2015 where a resolution was signed 4 out of 7 Directors for withdrawing the support. It has been observed by the Registrar in show cause notice that the Registrar was in receipt of communication from both the groups and special meeting had been sought by 4 Members of Board of Directors on 12-09-2015. During the meeting, they moved a no confidence motion against the petitioner. The rival group consist of 3 Members. 88. It has been observed by the Registrar, Cooperative Society that 2/3 majority comes to 4.66. It has further been observed that after the dispute arose there was chaos in the management of Society which could not run by the management as neither group had required legal strength and the Registrar proposed to resolve the dispute u/s 30 of J&K Cooperative Society Act, 1989 and issued show cause notice to both the groups. 89. The show cause notice were replied by both the parties/group on the respective stand taken by them with their allegations and counter allegations. But then after the consideration of the reply to the show cause notice and by the enquiry conducted and after hearing the Directors in person and conducting detailed interaction with both the groups it was observed by the Registrar that the Board of Directors has come into existence as a result of election conducted in November, 2014 under SRO 236 of 2013 dated 25-04-2013. 90. 90. The Registrar observed that in order to strengthen the democratic institution, it should be endeavour of the executive to give democratically elected institution opportunity to complete their full terms, so is required to be done in the instant case where Board of Directors in a meeting recommending non-applicant led by Brig. S.S. Sambyal that Board of Directors be dissolved, cannot be accepted as recommendation was made when he had the majority support as recommendation made by the minority are not legally tenable, on the other hand, since Sh. Amar Singh has the support of majority of the Directors (applicants), their application is therefore allowed and their claim of keeping the Board of Directors in suspended animation is hereby withdrawn and the Board of Directors is restored to its original position. The court declare the resolution dated 12-09-2015 passed by majority vote and electing Sh. Amar Singh as Chairman and Major Sh. Harnam Singh as Joint Chairman has legally valid with direction to all concerned that the new management led by Sh. Amar Singh be allowed to function.". 91. Thus as per the order dated 30-10-2015 the Registrar has resolved the conflict which according to him is a crisis in the management due to withdrawal of support of 4 out of 7 Directors. 92. Vires of decision of Registrar confirming Respondent No. 1 as chairman is in question and thus the question as to whether the petitioner No. 01 was entitled under law to act as Chairman in view of, in respect of withdrawal of support of 4 Directors out of 7 Directors, is the main question of law which is framed in the case and needs to be adjudicated With additional question as to what is meant by the word casting vote and whether the person exercising casting vote could otherwise have right to vote in electing the Chairman if the person himself was a candidate is therefore the core controversy in the dispute which the court needs to answer. 93. 93. The question of withdrawal of support by 4 out of 7 directors is resolved as under:- "So for as the authorities of the different courts and the Apex Court in this regard are concerned the same are discussed as under:- Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, Calcutta UP, Karnataka and Bombay High Courts on 2/3 majority have ruled as under:- In Punjab-Haryana High Court Mohinder Pal v. State Of Punjab & Others on 7 September, 2012 Civil Writ Petition No. 20380 of 2011 (O&M): "The Panchayat in the village consists of five Punches. No Confidence Motion was passed against the petitioner by 3 Punches out of 5. For counting of fraction to determine two-third majority, a reference may be made to order passed by Division Bench of Court in Jardar Khan v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 249 where 5 members of the Gram Panchayat having 8 members in all had passed a no confidence motion. The court observed that two-third of 8 is more than 5 by a fraction and that the said fraction cannot be ignored and has to be treated as a whole. The ?rd majority, thus, is to be seen from total number of members, being five. Thus, two-third majority was to be seen from amongst the 5 members and not on the basis of 3 members, who came present. Accordingly, the two-third majority being 3.33 out of 5, three Punches would not constitute two-third majority and for this purpose fraction cannot be ignored as has been held in above referred cases. The impugned resolution, therefore, is illegal and against the Statute and so cannot be sustained. The same is set aside." 94. Punjab-Haryana High Court in another case of Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab And Others on 27 August, 2012 in the election of Gram Panchayat village Patti Chhaurian, Block Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur observed that, only question, which requires consideration is whether three members out of 5 would constitute ?rd majority or not and on the basis of a number of precedents quoting in Jardar Khan v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 249. where 5 members of the Gram Panchayat having 8 members had passed a no confidence motion. where 5 members of the Gram Panchayat having 8 members had passed a no confidence motion. The court observed that two-third of 8 is more than 5 by a fraction and that the said fraction cannot be ignored and has to be treated as a whole. In this case also, the resolution allegedly carried by 5 members was said to have not been validly passed by the requisite majority. 95. Similar view was taken in Vijay Kumar Saluja v. The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal and others, 1991 PLJ 635, Jai Chand v. The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others, 1973 P.L. J. 704, Ram Narain Sharma etc. v. State of Haryana & others, 1973 PLJ 550, Shyamapada Ganguly v. Abani Mukharjee, AIR 1951 Calcutta 420 and number of other judgements that to calculate ?rd majority, the total number of members constituting the Panchayat or Municipal Council are to be taken into account. 96. The ?rd majority, thus, is to be seen from total number of members, being five. ?rd out of 5 member would be 3.33, which actually is more than whole number 3 by a fraction which cannot be ignored as per number of judgments noticed above. 97. In view of settled position of law, court held three out of five cannot be said to have constituted ?rd majority. No Confidence Motion was not validly passed and resultant notification issued deleting the name of the petitioner cannot be sustained. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner was held entitled to continue as Sarpanch. 98. In Lal Singh v. State of Punjab And Others on 13th September, 2012. In election to the Gram Panchayat, Village Baba 99. Deep Singh Nagar, District Ludhiana, 3 out of 5 voted against sarpanch in no confidence motion. Punjab-Haryana High Court relying on Jardar Khan v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 249, Vijay Kumar Saluja v. The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal and others, 1991 PLJ 635, Jai Chand v. The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others, 1973 P.L.J. 704, Ram Narain Sharma etc. v. State of Haryana & others, 1973 PLJ 550 and Shyamapada Ganguly v. Abani Mukharjee, AIR 1951 Calcutta 420 held the ?rd majority in the dissident votes would be 3.33 and the fraction for the purpose of counting ?rd majority can not be ignored. v. State of Haryana & others, 1973 PLJ 550 and Shyamapada Ganguly v. Abani Mukharjee, AIR 1951 Calcutta 420 held the ?rd majority in the dissident votes would be 3.33 and the fraction for the purpose of counting ?rd majority can not be ignored. Inderjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others on 2 August, 2012 Punjab-Haryana High Court out of 15 members appointed 14 participated in meeting out of 14, 9 voted in favour of no confidence motion and 5 against it. It was held counting of fraction for the purpose of determining two-third majority is the requirement under law and decision confirming such a resolution, which is not passed by ?rd majority, cannot be appreciated. 100. In another case of Punjab-Haryana High Court Kulwinder Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Others on 13 August, 2012 During Panchayat election held in June 2008, five Panches were elected in Village Ibrahimpur, 4 members participated. 3 voting for no confidence out of total five members was not held to be requisite number. Court held that for counting ?rd majority, the total number of members is to be taken into consideration. And fraction cannot be ignored. 101. In a case Girdhari Lal v. State of Rajasthan And Ors. on 30 September, 2002, 2003 (4) WLC 122 , 2003 (2) WLN 168 of Rajasthan High Court held that (Vali Mohd.) could not be counted for computing fraction of ?rd majority of whole/total number of members and the motion was dropped as having not been carried by ?rd of whole number of members of the Municipal Board. 102. The petitioner contested the election from Ward No. 22 and was elected as Member, Municipal Board, Suratgarh from the said ward. Where Out of 25 elected members, and one ex-officio member, 23 members exercised their right of franchise and 21 voters polled in favour of motion of No-Confidence. Municipal Board, Suratgarh had 30 elected members, court held the Motion of No-Confidence deemed to have been passed by majority of ?rd of whole number of members and figure of 21 out of 31 is a figure which shows that the motion has been carried out by ?rd majority. Municipal Board, Suratgarh had 30 elected members, court held the Motion of No-Confidence deemed to have been passed by majority of ?rd of whole number of members and figure of 21 out of 31 is a figure which shows that the motion has been carried out by ?rd majority. The court held the conclusion arrived at by respondent No. 3 (SDO, Suratgarh) through proceedings dated 3.7.2002 by which no-confidence motion against the respondent No. 4 (Hardeo Sahay) was treated as dropped is quashed and set aside and further declared that motion of no-confidence against respondent No. 4 (Hardeo Sahay) stood carried out) the respondent No. 4 (Hardeo Sahay) was ordered to be ousted from the office of Chairperson, Municipal Board, Suratgarh and further it was ordered that fresh election of Chairperson, Municipal Board, Suratgarh be held in accordance with law. 104. In Sangita Bhaskar Ingale v. The State of Maharashtra And ... on 4 March, 2015 Bombay High Court in case relating to panchayat village Rajigaon taluka Majir gaon where post of Sarpanch was reserved for women sarpanch and majority was required for no confidence motion against that sarpanch. 8 out of 11 passed no confidence motion which came equal to 8.25 votes. It was held that 0.25 vote is the fraction required for achieving th of majority which condition is not fulfilled such no confidence motion fails. 105. Karnataka High Court in Shambugowda v. State of Karnataka And Others on 14 July, 2000 : AIR 2000 Kant 381, 2000 (5) KarLJ 359 where the petitioner, who was Chairman of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bagalkot District prayed to quash the order in No. E:07:Election: 2000, dated 27-4-2000 of R-2, Director of Agriculture Marketing, Bangalore, passed removing him from the post of Chairman of the said Committee pursuant to the 'No-confidence Motion' passed by the Committee in its meeting held on 19-4-2000 the Committee, consisted of 18 members. The post of one of its member was lying vacant and out of its remaining 17 members one was an official member nominated to the Committee and 11 members of the Committee were present and participated in the meeting. They all unanimously supported the no-confidence motion against petitioner. The court held. 106. The post of one of its member was lying vacant and out of its remaining 17 members one was an official member nominated to the Committee and 11 members of the Committee were present and participated in the meeting. They all unanimously supported the no-confidence motion against petitioner. The court held. 106. As per the laid down by Supreme Court, the said one nominated official member of the Committee cannot be excluded from the counting and that when his number is also taken into account, then two thirds of existing members at the material point of time i.e., 17, comes to 11.33. 107. The crucial point for decision now was as to, 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 / one complete number? 108. The court held that, "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. Since the difference of .33 is liable to be ignored as of immaterial consequence, it necessarily follows that 11 members of the Committee who supported the no-confidence motion against petitioner make up ?rd 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." 109. The petition was dismissed. 110. In Bombay High Court Ashok Maniklal Harkut v. The Collector of Amravati And Anr. on 14 October, 1987, AIR 1988 Bom 207 , 1988 where out of 20 representatives 19 participated 13 voted against the president's no confidence motion, it was held that fraction cannot he ignored even if it will be less than 1/2 as in that case the person ousted will be having the majority less than the minimum 2/3 that is prescribed majority. 111. 111. An argument is also advanced by the counsel for the respondent that the rule of rounding off can be applied in evaluation of marks for admission or employment and cannot apply in elections where a vote cannot be divided but the Bombay High court in one of the above cases observed ".............the law laid down by this Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (2) Mh.L.J. 630 that the rule of rounding off cannot be restricted to any particular kind of case or to cases of employment, cannot be made applicable while considering whether a motion is carried by a majority, if the majority prescribed, falls short by a fraction. The respondent No.1 is duly elected as a Sarpanch by a democratic process and though the rule of rounding off is applied to the case of employment in the judgment reported in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 10 and to a case of admission in the judgment reported in 2013 (2) Mh.L.J. 630 , the rule of rounding off cannot be applied for removal of a Sarpanch if the majority required for the removal falls short by a fraction. In the full bench judgment of this Court, reported in 1988 Mh.L.J. 378, while considering the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, this Court observed that the provision of carrying the motion by not less than a particular majority is mandatory and a fraction cannot be ignored as if the fraction is ignored, the majority will be less than the prescribed majority. This Court went on to add in the said reported judgment that the expression "not less than" being mandatory, the number of votes could not be less than the majority prescribed, though it could be more. Since, in the WP/2070/2015 instant case, if the fraction of th in th is ignored, the majority would be less than th and since the motion is required to be carried by a majority of not less than th of the number of members, who are for the time being, entitled to sit and vote in the special meeting, the fraction could not have been ignored in this case. The Tahsildar rightly held that the resolution was not passed by a majority of not less than of the members of the Panchayat, and hence, the motion moved against the respondent - Sarpanch had failed." 112. The Tahsildar rightly held that the resolution was not passed by a majority of not less than of the members of the Panchayat, and hence, the motion moved against the respondent - Sarpanch had failed." 112. As per interpretation of parliamentary procedure ?rd majority includes fraction calculated to whole suppose there are 17 votes ?rd majority has been calculated to be 12 out 11.33 and not 11. 113. Thus from the aforementioned authorities and judicial precedents of different High Courts and the Honourable Supreme court for determining minimum super majority of ?rd, a fraction, miniscule vote cannot be ignored while counting and the same has to be taken as a whole. 114. As regards another contention of the respondent that chairman has no voting right and he can exercise the right of casting vote in case of tie only. This position is not in the tune of the literal rule of interpretation of the statute and as per the judgments aforementioned the chairman is not deprived of his right to vote which does exist in his own right as a Director or member and the casting vote is in addition to his right otherwise which can be exercised in case the votes in favour of two rival factions are equal so to say in case of a tie. 115. In the instant case out of the total 7 members 4 have voted against the petitioner and three in his favour which means ?rd majority of 7 is equal to 4.66. Fraction of .66 being more than is rounded off to whole. Thus the number falls short by 1 and the resolution therefore fails. 116. The Registrar is therefore shown to have wrongly held that the petitioner has lost the majority as chairman of the society and the decision rendered by him is therefore erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 117. Revision petition is therefore accepted and the order under revision is set aside. Revision file be consigned to records Record be sent back.