Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. So far as the no-confidence motion moved and passed against the Chairman of Social Justice Committee of Taluka (which is the subject of L.P.A. No. 1451 of 1997 arising out of S.C.A. No. 3484 of 1997) is concerned, the learned Counsel Shri Tushar Mehta referred to the provisions of Sections 123 and 145 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 to point out that both the provisions provide for constitution, tenure, functions etc. of various committees to be constituted under Taluka Panchayats and District Panchayats. Attention is also invited to Sections 126 and 140 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993. It is pointed out that the procedure in respect of meetings of statutory committees is left to be provided by way of subordinate legislation in the form of statutory rules. Comparing provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, it is sought to be demonstrated that while Sections 56, 70 and 84 provide for passing of no-confidence motion, against Sarpanch or President, as the case may be, only by 2/3rd majority, Sections 96, 127 and 151 of the Act respectively for Gram, Taluka and District Panchayats provide that all questions are to be decided by majority of votes and further confer power upon the President who presides over meetings to exercise and cast vote. Thus, reading the relevant provisions mentioned above of Agricultural Produce Markets Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and the Gujarat Panchayats Act, the principal contention advanced is that whenever the competent legislature, has in its wisdom, conferred right to move and pass no-confidence motion upon the electorate to recall/remove the leader elected by them, the Legislature has enacted stringent procedural provisions laying down the manner of moving the motion, the strength required for moving the motion, corresponding right upon the elected persons to represent their views against the motion, strength required for passing the motion and also a provision that such a motion even if passed shall not take effect before three days of its passing.

32. Taking guidance from the above authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, we have to construe the provisions. First, we take up the case under Agricultural Produce Markets Act to examine whether any statutory right exists in the members of the Market Committee to recall or remove its Chairman/ Vice-Chairman by moving a no-confidence motion.

33. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners appear plausible that since in the Agricultural Produce Markets Act there is no specific right given and procedure provided for moving and passing a no-confidence motion by the members of the Market Committee, such provision cannot be read by implication. In this respect, it is also argued that the foremost requirement of passing of a no-confidence motion is that the person against whom the motion is moved and may be passed must be given a reasonable opportunity to participate in the proceedings of the motion so as to place his point of view and persuade or convince the members to drop the motion and repose confidence in him. On behalf of the petitioners/appellants it is submitted that wherever Legislature desired that such a right of recall or removal of a Chairman or Vice-Chairman should be provided to the members of the elected body, a detail procedure with requisite majority for moving and for passing it has been laid down coupled with right of participation and hearing to the Chairman/Vice-Chairman against whom the motion is moved and likely to be passed. As has been mentioned above, relevant provisions of Municipalities Act and Panchayats Act containing detail procedure for passing no-confidence motion were pointed out to us and were read with various decisions rendered on those provisions by this Court and the Apex Court. Comparing the provisions of Agricultural Produce Markets Act with Acts governing other local authorities like Municipalities and Panchayats, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that in the absence of express provision regulating the procedure for moving and passing a no-confidence motion with participation of person against whom the motion is moved, such a provision or right to the members should not be read by implication, because right to election and recall is merely a statutory right and not a "fundamental right" or "common law right". It is also argued that the safeguard which is a part of principle of natural justice of providing opportunity to the person against whom motion is moved of participation and the hearing is not to be found in the provisions of Agricultural Produce Markets Act and the Rules.

57. The examination of the procedure of holding meeting under Rule 35 as discussed above, covers in our considered opinion, a special meeting called by members for passing a no-confidence motion by simple majority.

58. A contention was also advanced that there are no Specific Rules regulating the procedure of moving of a no-confidence motion in a particular manner and in the prescribed form with stating grounds on which the motion is moved, as is to be found in the provisions of the Municipalities and Panchayats Acts, particularly in Education Committee of Panchayat. Reference in this respect is made to Gujarat Panchayats (Procedural) Rules, 1997 which were published in the Gazelle of Government of Gujarat Extraordinary Part IA No. 29 on 6-3-1997. (See : 1997 GCD Gujarat Section Part II at page 147). On the basis of the above Procedural Rules applicable to Panchayats, it is pointed out that it is only against Sarpanch/President or Upa-Sarpanch/Vice President (under Rule 20} and against the Chairman of the Education Committee (Rule 48), that no-confidence motion can be moved in prescribed form A and B respectively provided under the Rules. On the basis of the prescribed form A and B for moving no-confidence motion, it is pointed out that it contemplates specification of the reasons for moving the no-confidence motion. Such a provision or procedure, it is contended, being absent in the Agricultural Produce Markets Act and Rules, a no-confidence motion cannot be allowed to be moved without specification of reasons or grounds for moving the motion and without grant of opportunity to the holder of the elected office against whom motion is moved so as to allow him to meet those grounds and reasons to persuade the members to repose confidence in the holder of the office.

60. From the observations quoted above, it is clear that no-confidence motion does not require statement of any reasons for moving the motion nor does it require passing of motion by stating reasons for passing the same. As has been rightly emphasised by the Counsel for the respondents, confidence in the elected holder of office is the soul of democracy. All democratic institutions function on mutual confidence between the members and their leader. Loss of confidence without anything else, which is based on objective basis, is sufficient to move the motion. The principles of natural justice arc not breached where a no-confidence motion is moved with due notice to the person against whom it is moved and he gets an opportunity in the meeting for passing the motion to participate and have his say to regain confidence of the elected body. Merely because in the Agricultural Produce Markets Act and the Rules, there is no Rule and Form prescribed for moving the motion with requirement of specification of reasons and grounds for moving and passing it, it cannot be held that a no-confidence motion cannot be passed against the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Market Committee. Justice M. S. Shah in considering absence of similar express provision of no-confidence motion against Chairman of Social Justice Committee in Gujarat Panchayats Act and the Rules, read and recognised such a provision, as a necessary adjunct of the power of committee to elect. In the case of Narmadaben v. Parmar reported in 1998 (1) GLR 225, the following quoted observations of M. S. Shah, J. have our respectful approval, as it accords with the views expressed by us above :-