Ramesh Mehta vs Sanwal Chand Singhvi & Ors

The Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of 'whole number of members' in Rule 3(9) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No-Confidence against Chairman/Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974, determining that it excludes nominated members. The Court upheld the Division Bench's ruling that the counting of members for a no-confidence motion should consider only elected members, referencing Sections 3(36) and 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the SDO's decision regarding the no-confidence motion's validity.