WP(C) 1346/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. J Islam, le arned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. VL Singh, learned Sta te counsel appearing for the State respondents and Mr. BD Das, learned Sr. couns el assisted by Mr. HK Sarma, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 1 1. 2. Considering the matter in its entirety and as agreed to by the learned c ounsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. 3. The brief facts necessary for determination of the issues raised in this petition are that the petitioner having been elected as a Member of No.7 Sarukh etri Anchalik Panchayat from No. 16 Dakhin Pachim Sarukhetri Gaon Panchayat was subsequently elected as the President of No. 7 Sarukhetri Anchalik Panchayat una nimously by the Members of the said Anchalik Panchayat. However, on receipt of a copy of a caveat petition from this Court, she came to know from the first time that on 08.02.2011, a notice has been given by some members of the said No.7 Sa rukhetri Anchalik Panchayat to the Executive Officer/Block Development Officer, Sarukhetri intimating their no confidence against the petitioner. Thereafter, on enquiry from the said Executive Officer, the petitioner came to know that a not ice of no-confidence motion dated 08.02.2011 submitted to the Executive Officer had already been referred to the Zilla Parishad for necessary action. A copy of the said notice of no-confidence dated 08.02.2011 signed by six members of the s aid Anchalik Panchayat is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 4. Pointing out the provisions of Section 43(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short ’the Act’), the petitioner has pleaded that as per the provisio ns laid down in Section 43(1) of the Act, on receipt of the no-confidence motion the Executive Officer is to convene a meeting within 15 days with the approval of the President and only if such meeting is not convened to discuss the no-conf idence motion within the stipulated period of 15 days, the Executive Officer is to refer the matter to the Zilla Parishad. But in the instant case, the Executiv e Officer (respondent No.5) has allegedly initiated the process of no-confidence against the President, i.e. the petitioner violating the law laid down in Secti on 43(1), inasmuch as, the respondent Nos. 6 to 11 did not serve any copy of the notice dated 08.02.2011 to the petitioner. 5. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the meeting to disc uss the no-confidence motion in terms of the aforesaid notice dated 08.02.2011 i s fixed to be held on 10.03.2011. 6. Considering the emergent nature of the case, original records of Sarukhe tri Anchalik Panchayat was asked to be produced which was produced in original b efore this Court. I have gone through the said records and have also considered the pleadings made in the writ petition as well as the rival submissions of the parties advanced through their aforesaid learned counsel. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that on 10.02.2011, a notice of no-confi dence signed by altogether six members of the Anchalik Panchayat in question was received at the office of the Executive Officer whereafter the same was shown t o be placed before the President of the Anchalik Panchayat on 10.02.2011 itself. It is, thereafter, recorded on 22.02.2011 that on 21.02.2011 the file containin g the aforesaid notice having been placed before the President at her residence, she refused to sign the same and promised to put her signature on 22.02.2011 at the office of the Block Development Officer. Thereafter, the note sheet contain s an order of the Executive Officer for transmitting the entire records to the C hief Executive Officer of the District or the Departmental authorities. The date inscribed below the signature of the authority transcribing the said order rese mbles to 11.02.2011 (in Assamese vernacular). 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the prevailing facts. There is some doubt cast as to whether the notice of no-confidence dated 08.02.2011 was i n fact served upon the President, inasmuch as, there is no material on record sh owing service of the notice of no-confidence on the petitioner, i.e. the Preside nt. There is no endorsement of any independent witness regarding attempt to serv e the notice on the President, i.e. the petitioner or any proof of her denial to receive the same. On the other hand, as of date, there cannot be any denial of the fact that the petitioner has already got notice of the no-confidence motion against her as contained in the document marked as Annexure-1 to the writ petiti on itself. 9. The procedure laid down under Section 43 of the Act is intended to provi de a reasonable opportunity to a President of Anchalik Panchayat to defend himse lf/herself against the no-confidence motion on the floor of the Panchayat. In a democratic society, fair play in every sphere of life has to be ensured. Hence, in my considered opinion, taking the totality of the matter, the cause of justic e would be served if the petitioner is now afforded reasonable opportunity to de fend herself on the floor of the Panchayat in the event of the notice of no-conf idence dated 08.02.2011 being moved against her. 10. Hence, it is directed that the meeting to discuss the no-confidence moti on fixed to be held on 10.03.2011 shall stand deferred and be convened on 22.03. 2011. Official notice notifying the aforesaid date and agenda of the meeting sha ll be issued by the Executive Officer, i.e. the respondent No. 5 by 11.03.2011. Needless to say that the writ petitioner shall be allowed to avail of all opport unities to exercise her democratic rights to defend herself on the floor of the Panchayat in the meeting dated 22.03.2011 in the event of the no-confidence moti on being pressed against her. 11. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cos ts.