RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Jagram Vishnoi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6094/2021
Decided On : 19-04-2021
NoConfidence - No Confidence Motion - Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 - Section 7(11)(b) - The court interpreted Section 7(11)(b) requiring a two-thirds majority for a No Confidence Motion, concluding that the motion failed as it did not meet the necessary vote threshold.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the notice and corrigendum regarding a No Confidence Motion against him as Chairman of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, arguing procedural irregularities and insufficient time for deliberation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the No Confidence Motion did not achieve the required two-thirds majority as stipulated by the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, leading to the conclusion that the motion failed.
Issues: Whether the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner was valid given the voting results and procedural compliance with the relevant statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the No Confidence Motion was invalid as it did not receive the requisite two-thirds majority of votes from the members present, as mandated by the Act.
Result: The petition was disposed of as the No Confidence Motion failed due to insufficient votes.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the notice dated 30.03.2021 (Annex.3) as well as corrigendum dated 31.03.2021 (Annex.4) issued by the authorized officer in relation to the No Confidence Motion moved against the petitioner as Chairman of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Anaj), Jodhpur.
2. When the writ petition came up before the Court on 08.04.2021 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court ordered as under:-
Contention rather apprehension has been expressed about the free and fair atmosphere in the ensuing meeting.
Though host of other arguments were advanced, however, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly because 'No Confidence Motion' is scheduled to be held tomorrow, without entering into the issues canvassed at this stage, in a bid to ensure free and fair conducting of the meeting for 'No Confidence Motion' in question, the following directions are issued: -
(i) The time for discussion/meeting shall be 11.00 am to 12 Noon and thereafter voting shall take place,
(ii) The voting shall be held by secret ballots and not simply by raise of hands.
(iii) The Election Officer shall ensure videography of the meeting so also of the voting, obviously while maintaining secrecy of the ballots.
(iv) The Election Officer shall count the ballots and prepare the result, which shall not be declared. The same shall be produced before this Court in a sealed envelope on the next date of hearing, which is being fixed at 2.00 pm on 16.04.2021.
List the matter on 16.04.2021 at 2.00 pm."
3. Pursuant to the order dated 08.04.2021, the proceedings for consideration of No Confidence Motion were held on 09.04.2021.
4. When the matter came up before the Court on 16.04.2021, as ordered on 08.04.2021, though the authorized officer was present alongwith record, the matter was ordered to be listed on 19.04.2021.
5. Today again the authorized officer is present alongwith the record in a sealed cover.
6. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the result of the No Confidence Motion was taken out from the sealed cover.
7. The authorized officer in his report dated 09.04.2021 pursuant to the voting held, in terms of the order passed by the Court on 08.04.2021, has reported as under:-

8. Further the authorized officer present in person, has referred to the provisions of Section 7(11)(b) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 ('the Act') regarding the requirement for passing of a No Confidence Motion.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the said provision and submitted that as the votes cast in favour of the no confidence motion are less than 2/3rd of the members of the market committee present, the motion has failed.
10. I have considered the submissions, as noticed, hereinbefore, out of the total existing 15 members, all attended the meeting and cast their vote, out of which, 9 cast their vote in favour of the No Confidence Motion and 6 against the No Confidence Motion.
11. Provisions of Section 7(11)(b) of the Act inter-alia read as under:-
The legal principle established in the judgment is that the motion against the Chairman of the market committee must be carried by a majority of not less than 2/3rd of the members of the market commi....
A No Confidence Motion requires a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, as per the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961.
Properly convened meeting with a notice issued at least 7 days in advance is essential for the no confidence motion proceedings.
The importance of adhering to procedural requirements for no confidence motions, the significance of majority opinion, and the discretionary powers of the court in such matters.
The omission of authorities to conduct a no confidence vote against the elected leaders contravenes the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, emphasizing that voting is mandatory and quorum is not required.
Procedural requirements for considering a motion of no confidence are mandatory and must be strictly followed, as interpreted from Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1994.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.