Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 869 (RAJ)

Jagram Vishnoi v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-04-19

ARUN BHANSALI

body2021
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:- "While advancing various arguments including that 'No Confidence Motion' being conducted on 09.04.2021 is illegal, as copy of the motion has not been appended with the notice dated 30.03.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the time for discussion/deliberation on motion i.e. between 11.00 am and 11.15 am is too little and it will not be sufficient for the Members of the Committee to deliberate, particularly when they are not aware of the reasons for which 'No Confidence Motion' has been moved. 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. 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:- "(b) If the motion against the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman is carried by a majority of not less than two thirds of the members of the market committee present and voting and by not less than 50% of its total membership the Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall cease 'to hold, office as such and vacate the same on and from the date on which such resolution is carried out. A notice to this effect shall be affixed by such authority on the notice board of the office of the market committee." 12. A perusal of the above provision reveals that the motion against the Chairman is required to be carried by a majority of not less than 2/3rd of the members of the market committee present and voting and by not less than 50% of its total membership. 13. A perusal of the above provision reveals that the motion against the Chairman is required to be carried by a majority of not less than 2/3rd of the members of the market committee present and voting and by not less than 50% of its total membership. 13. The 2/3rd of the members of the market committee present and voting, in the present case, comes to 10 and as, the votes in favour of the no confidence motion cast are 9 only, the same does not fulfill the requirements for passing of the motion of No Confidence in the chairman. 14. In view thereof, after noticing the result of the votes cast on the No Confidence Motion, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the petition any further. 15. The authorized officer shall now take formal steps like declaration of the result etc. pursuant to the meeting dated 09.04.2021. 16. In view of the above, while making the order dated 08.04.2021 passed by the Court absolute, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.