1. The petitioner, the Chairperson of Respondent No.3 - Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, Anand, has challenged the action of the Managing Director of the respondent Federation, of calling the meeting of the Board of Directors on 26.10.2013 to consider the No Confidence Motion moved by the majority of the Board of Directors against him, and all subsequent actions, including passing of the said No Confidence Motion on 05.12.2013 and his consequential removal from the said post.

2.1 The challenge to the consideration and passing of the said No Confidence Motion against the petitioner on 05.12.2013, is principally on the ground that, there is no such provision in the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and in absence of any specific provision in the statute in that regard, the same could not have been done. There are other ancillary issues also, but principally, the controversy in this petition is as stated above.

2.2 Whether in absence of any provision in the statute, No Confidence Motion can be brought against any elected office bearer or not, is already answered by this Court in three different decisions, the details of which are as under :

(i) Nandlal Bavanjibhai Posiya versus Director of Agriculture Marketing & Rural Finance 2002 (1) GLH 659 (Full Bench) [under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 ]

(ii) Motibhai R. Chaudhary versus Registrar, Cooperative Societies 2005 (1) GLH 270 (Division Bench) [under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 ]

(iii) Narmadaben Parmar versus Taluka Development Officer, Kheralu 1998 (1) GLR 225 (Single Judge) [under the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993] Thus, under (i) the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, (ii) the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, and (iii) the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, consistent view of this Court has been, that even in absence of any specific provision in the principal statute, No Confidence Motion can be brought and considered to remove any elected office bearer.

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).

3. Taking into consideration the above principal contention and the decision of this Court in the case of Babubhai Kalidas Patel (supra), while issuing Notice on 25.10.2013, this Court had granted stay in favour of the petitioner in terms of Para- 15(E) of the petition. The said para reads as under.

“This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to stay the implementation and further operations of the impugned communication dated 23.10.2013 including agenda of the convening the meeting on 26.10.2013 at 11.00 a.m. at the office of the respondent No.3 Federation for transacting the business enumerated at Item No.1 annexed to the communication Annexure-C in any manner till pending, hearing and final disposal of this petition.”

4. This petition was admitted by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2013 and again, taking note of the decision of this Court in the case of B