Implied power to remove elected office-bearers supports no-confidence motions where the statute does not prohibit them.

Under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 and the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, an elected Chairman or Vice-Chairman may be subjected to a no-confidence motion even without an express enabling provision, where the office is filled by simple majority and the statute does not prohibit removal. The statutory scheme was read to permit implied recall power, supported by meeting rules, casual vacancy provisions, and the General Clauses Act principle that power to appoint generally includes power to remove unless a contrary intention appears. The reasoning emphasizes democratic accountability of elected office-bearers in statutory bodies.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of an express provision, members of a Market Committee or a Panchayat committee can validly move and pass a no-confidence motion against an elected Chairman or Vice-Chairman and whether the general power to elect carries with it the power to remove by no-confidence.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 and the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 shows that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman are elected by the members of the Committee by simple majority, the meetings of the Committee are governed by majority vote, and the office ceases on the holder ceasing to hold office for any reason. The expression "ceasing to hold office for any reason" was construed broadly to include removal on loss of confidence. The absence of an express no-confidence provision did not indicate a contrary legislative intent, because the Rules already provide the mechanism for convening and conducting meetings and for filling casual vacancies. The Court also approved the use of the General Clauses Act principle that the power to appoint includes, unless a different intention appears, the power to remove. The same reasoning was held applicable to committee chairpersons under the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, where no express prohibition existed and democratic functioning required accountability of elected office-bearers.

Conclusion: A no-confidence motion against an elected Chairman or Vice-Chairman is permissible under the governing statutory scheme, even without an express enabling provision, where the office is elected by simple majority and the statute does not prohibit such removal. The contention that such a motion is invalid for want of express provision was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The common legal question was answered against the petitioners, the challenge to the no-confidence proceedings failed, and the connected matters were disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: In an elected statutory body, the power to elect an office-bearer by simple majority ordinarily carries an implied statutory power to recall or remove that office-bearer by no-confidence, unless the governing enactment expressly prohibits such removal or prescribes a contrary procedure or majority.

---