2002 (2) TMI 1318 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms validity of no-confidence motions under Gujarat Acts, emphasizing democratic principles and procedural requirements.

Nandlal Bavanjibhai Posiya And Versus Director Of Agriculture

The court upheld the validity of no-confidence motions under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act and the Gujarat Panchayats Act, interpreting ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of no-confidence motions under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, and the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.2. Interpretation of statutory provisions and implied rights in the absence of express provisions.3. Application of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act to elective offices.4. Procedural requirements for moving and passing no-confidence motions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of No-confidence Motions:The primary issue was whether no-confidence motions against the Chairman/Vice-Chairman of Agricultural Produce Market Committees and the Chairman of Social Justice Committees under the Gujarat Panchayats Act could be validly passed in the absence of express statutory provisions. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, and the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, and concluded that the right to move and pass a no-confidence motion is inherent in the statutory right to elect. The court emphasized that democratic institutions function on mutual confidence between members and their leaders, and the absence of express prohibition implies the existence of such a right.2. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Implied Rights:The court held that the right to remove an elected leader by a no-confidence motion is implied in the statutory provisions governing the election of such leaders. The court rejected the argument that the absence of express provisions for no-confidence motions indicates a legislative intent to prohibit them. The court noted that the language of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 33 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965, which states 'ceasing to hold office for any reason,' includes removal by a no-confidence motion.3. Application of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act:The court applied Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, which provides that the power to appoint includes the power to suspend or dismiss. The court held that this section applies to elective offices as well, and the authority that has the power to elect also has the power to remove the elected person. The court disagreed with the Bombay High Court's decision in Hindurao Balwant Patil, which restricted the application of Section 16 to non-elective offices.4. Procedural Requirements for No-confidence Motions:The court examined the procedural requirements for moving and passing no-confidence motions under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act and the Gujarat Panchayats Act. The court held that in the absence of specific provisions, the general procedure for conducting meetings and transacting business applies. This includes the requirement of a quorum, the right of the person presiding over the meeting to speak and vote, and the obligation to give notice of the meeting to all members. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice are not breached if the person against whom the motion is moved is given an opportunity to participate in the meeting and speak.Separate Judgments:- Letters Patent Appeal No. 1451 of 1997: The appeal was dismissed as infructuous since the term of the Social Justice Committee had already expired.- Letters Patent Appeal No. 1177 of 2001: The appeal was disposed of in terms of the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 5120 of 2001.- Special Civil Application No. 5120 of 2001: The interim relief was vacated, and the respondent authorities were directed to declare and implement the result of the no-confidence motion.- Special Civil Application No. 7278 of 2001: The interim relief was vacated, and the no-confidence motion passed against the petitioners was directed to be implemented.In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of no-confidence motions under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act and the Gujarat Panchayats Act, interpreting the statutory provisions to include the implied right to remove elected leaders by such motions. The court also applied Section 16 of the General Clauses Act to elective offices and outlined the procedural requirements for moving and passing no-confidence motions.