Important Point:
a)A no confidence move is a democratic process in-built in the functioning of a democratic body where the representatives are elected by electing body of members, at any hierarchical level, whether it is cooperative society or parliament. Whether a statute contains procedural requirement for moving no confidence motion or not, the motion of no confidence can always be moved by the body of members if they are unable to continue reposition of their faith in elected representatives.b)There was no imperative requirement in the case of a motion of no confidence that it should be passed on some particular ground.c)Difference between a motion of no confidence and a censure motion, is in case of censure motion it was necessary to set out ground or charge on which it is based, but a motion of no confidence need not set out any ground.d)The political pressure or political motive may not be a good argument at all without anything else legally sustainable. Nor does it add to a plea of mala fide by itself. The corridors of power always hum with political activities, for, they are the corridors of power. Every hummer and every political move therefrom do not become subject matter of interference by the Court of law and the writ court, of course, unless the action, decision or conduct is in contravention of some statutory provision, is to defeat the law or the interference is necessary to secure and protect some higher legal principle or Constitutional enforcement. Every political maneuvering, unless amounts to violation of law, is no ground in a court of law.

By means of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question communication-cum-agenda notice dated 14th December, 2016 issued by the Deputy Director and the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies-the third respondent herein. Thereby, the said authority convened a meeting of the members of the market committee on 19th December, 2016 at 11.30 at the venue mentioned. As per the Agenda, the meeting was meant for considering a motion of no confidence against the petitioner herein.

2. It may be stated for completion of recording the events and facts that this petition was moved on 16th December, 2016 on urgent basis for being taken up on the same date, for which, though permission was granted, the matter was refused to be taken up by passing an order as the petitioner was non-compliant of the office objections. The petition was kept on 19th December, 2016 at 10.30 a.m., however on 17th December, 2016 a note was moved before the Registrar for preponing the hearing of the petition stating that as the meeting was scheduled to take place. Permission of Honourable the Chief Justice was obtained and the matter was allowed to be taken up by the Court by holding special sitting at 05.00 p.m.

2.1 The following order was passed, extracting the relevant paragraphs.

“4.1 The submissions and contentions were advanced by the respective counsels and were considered by the Court on the aspect of admitting or not admitting the petition as well as granting or not granting the interim relief.

5. Since today being the court non-working Saturday and the matter is taken up at 05.00 p.m. onwards, looking to the time constraint, reserved for orders.

6. Since the petition is reserved for orders, it is hereby provided that the meeting which is scheduled to take place as per Notice/Agenda dated 14.12.2016 (Page 17, Annexure-A), shall take place. The Agenda for No Confidence Motion may be undertaken which shall be by secret ballot only. The outcome of the process, however shall not be disclosed nor shall be divulged and shall be kept in a sealed cover by the competent authority-the third respondent. As far as the question of charing the meeting concerned, thereon, upon instructions from the respective clients and the officers personally present in the court, as the case may be, learned counsels for the parties stated that the meeting may be chaired by the third respondent authority. It is ordered accordingly. The Chairman as above shall conduct the meeting in accordance with law.”

3. The petitioner happens to be the elected member of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ahmedabad, having been elected on 22nd January, 2015. Thereafter, in the meeting held on 20th February, 2015, the petitioner was elected uncontested as Vice Chairman of Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC). It is the case of the petitioner that since there has been a shift in the political scenario and that the ruling party has been trying to pressurise the members to remove the petitioner as Vice Chairman and wants to regain the power of the Market Committee, the motion is moved in an act far from bona fide, at a time when the term of the office of the petitioner Vice-Chairman is nearing to come to an end.

4. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. Sudhir Nanavati with learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioner, and learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Prakash Jani assisted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ronak Raval for respondent No.1- State of Gujarat, respondent No.2-Director, Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance and respondent No.3-Deputy Director and District Registrar, Cooperative Societies at length. Learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela appeared for respondent No.4 whereas learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave with learned advocate Mr. Anil Patel appeared for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

4.1 From the pleadings of the petition and submissions made by learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner, it could b