WP(C) 6596/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P.K.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. M. Alamgeer, learne d counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.9 to 15. The matter relates to no confidence motion moved against the President o f 71 No. Saidori Gaon Panchayat in the district of Nagaon. According to the peti tioners the no confidence motion being not moved on 02.12.2010, as per provision s of proviso to Section 15(5), it should be deemed to have lost and consequently there cannot be any such motion within next 6(six) months as per the mandate of the said proviso. On the other hand, it is the stand of the private respondents that, in f act, the same very President of Rupahi Anchalik Panchayat, who has issued the An nexure-3 order dated 06.12.2010, had issued the notice dated 30.11.2010 that bec ause of the pendency of WP(C) No.6186/2010 the meeting scheduled to be held on 0 2.12.2010 to discuss the no confidence motion would remain stayed. The aforesaid writ petition being WP(C) No.6186/2010 was filed by the Pr esident of the Gaon Panchayat against the no confidence motion meeting scheduled to be held on 02.12.2010. Although there was no stay order passed in the said w rit petition, but the President of the Rupahi Anchalik Panchayat issued the afor esaid notice dated 30.11.2010 intimating stay of the meeting on 02.12.2010. Howe ver, on 06.12.2010 the same very authority issued the Annexure-3 order informing that the meeting could not be held due to lack of quorum. On the face of it, th e order so passed is not sustainable. The authority having first issued the noti ce dated 23.11.2010 staying the meeting scheduled to be held on 02.12.2010 could not have issued consequent notification dated 06.12.2010 stating that the meeti ng could not be held due to lack of quorum. Apart from the above, the President of the Gaon Panchayat against whom the no confidence motion has been sought to b e moved is not before this Court. His earlier writ petition being WP(C) No.6186/ 2010 was allowed to be withdrawn and the present writ petition has been filed by the members of the Gaon Panchayat. There being provisions for no confidence motion against the President of the Gaon Panchayat, the same cannot be set at naught on technicalities. Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decisio n reported in 2005(1) GLR 606 (Kanika Choudhury Vs. State of Assam & ors.), in w hich it was held that when the no confidence motion meeting could not be held du e to non-attendance of requisite number of members, the second no confidence mot ion will not be permissible within the stipulated period of 6(six) months. In th e instant case, we are not concerned with that kind of a situation. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. The no confidence motion moved against the President of the Gaon Panchayat shall be brought to its logical conclusion by the appropriate authority by taking appropriate action as expeditiously as possible.