Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.3 However, learned advocate for the petitioner, in support of above stated principal contention, had placed strong reliance on the decision recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Babubhai Kalidas Patel versus State of Gujarat & Others, on Special Civil Application No.11351 of 2012 with Special Civil Application No.4087 of 2012 dated 01.11.2012. Attention of this Court was invited to para 7.15 of the said decision to point out that, the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Motibhai R. Chaudhary (supra), which otherwise could have governed the controversy in this petition, is no more a good law. It was further pointed out that, not only the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Motibhai R. Chaudhary (supra) is held to have been impliedly overruled, even the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nandlal Bavanjibhai Posiya (supra) and that of Single Judge in case of Narmadaben V.Parmar (supra) are also held to have stood impliedly overruled, by the said decision of Babubhai Kalidas Patel (supra).

"36. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, our answer to the question is as under:-

The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nandlal Bavanjibhai Posiya (supra) and that of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Motibhai R. Chaudhary (supra) and that of the learned Single Judge in the case of Narmadaben V. Parmar (supra) can be said as impliedly overruled only limited to taking aid of the General Clauses Act, but cannot be said as impliedly overruled for consideration of the motion of no confidence in absence of any statutory provision provided for consideration of the motion of no confidence or in absence of any statute or rule prohibiting the consideration of motion of no confidence." (emphasis supplied)

12. It is under these circumstances, that this petition is now listed for further hearing before this Court. As noted above, the merits of the matter were gone into while recording order dated 06.01.2014 and except the principal contention referred above, all other contentions were answered and appropriate order was also passed. Not only that, it is even the subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No.14 of 2014. While recording order dated 06.01.2014, the only contention left unanswered was, as to whether the No Confidence Motion could have been brought at all, against the petitioner, in absence of any provision in that regard in the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. As such, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Motibhai Chaudhry (supra) this contention could have been rejected then only, however, since the said decision of Motibhai Chaudhry (supra) was perceived to have been impliedly overruled by the co-ordinate Bench while recording decision in the case of Babubhai Kalidas Patel (supra), reference was made to the Division Bench and now, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench dated January 17-20, 2014, it is held that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Motibhai Chaudhry (supra) is not impliedly overruled, so far as consideration of the no confidence motion even in absence of any statutory provision in that regard is concerned. Thus, the said contention now gets answered by the Division Bench as quoted above. The said contention therefore needs to be rejected. However, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has, at this stage, made further submissions before this Court, which need to be dealt with and answered.

16. Mr.Amit Panchal, learned advocate for respondent No.5 has adopted the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate for the respondent No.3 Federation. It is submitted that the petition be dismissed.

17. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, before the above stated contentions are dealt with, at the outset, it needs to be recorded that this petition was not only heard earlier, but was decided also, in part. Further, even the part of judgment and order dated 06.01.2014, to the extent of Para- 14.2 (ii) and (iii) is also the subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No.14 of 2014, which is yet to be heard on merits, as transpires from the order dated 10.01.2014 recorded on the said appeal. Under these circumstances, it is only that part of this petition, which is not decided while recording order dated 06.01.0214, that can be considered at this stage. It is recorded that even all the learned advocates have also addressed this Court only on those points, which are not forming part of the order of this Court dated 06.01.2014. As noted above, while recording the order dated 06.01.2014, the only contention left unanswered was, as to whether the No Confidence Motion could have been brought at all, against the petitioner, in absence of any provision in that regard in the Gujarat Co- operative Societies Act, 1961. As such, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Motibhai Chaudhry (supra), this contention could have been rejected then only, however, since the said decision of Motibhai Chaudhry (supra) was perceived to have been impliedly overruled by the co-ordinate Bench while recording decision in the case of Babubhai Kalidas Patel (supra), reference was made to the Division Bench and now, the Division Bench has also, vide its judgment dated January 17-20, 2014 held that, the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Motibhai Chaudhry (supra) is not impliedly overruled, so far consideration of the No Confidence Motion even in absence of any statutory provision in that regard, is concerned. Thus, the said contention now gets answered by the Division Bench as quoted above and the said contention therefore needs to be rejected, however, as noted above, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has, at this stage, made further submissions also, which need to be dealt with and answered and by this judgment, only those contentions are gone into and answered as under.