WP(C) 6073/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A .M.Buzarbaruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 7 to 13. I hav e also heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. The petitioner, who is the President of No. 91 Manikpur Gaon Panchayat, by filling the instant writ petition, has called in question the Annexure-3 lett er dated 10.11.2010, by which the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta furnished the inf ormation that a special meeting of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner w ould be held on 18.11.2010 in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Mandi a Dev. Block. According to the petitioner, such special meeting to discuss the N o Confidence Motion brought against the petitioner, could not have been convened in view of the bar imposed by 2nd proviso to Section 15(1) and also proviso to Section 15(5) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. Section 15 of the act deals with No Confidence Motion against the Presid ent and Vice President. Detail procedures have been laid down about the discussi on of the No Confidence Motion. As per the 2nd Proviso to section 15(1), when a No Confidence Motion is lost, no such motion shall be allowed in the next six mo nths. 2nd proviso to Section 15(5) also provides that if it is not possible to h old the meeting for a situation due to non-attendance of the requisite number of members in such meeting or meetings, as the case may be, the No Confidence Moti on shall automatically stand cancelled and motion shall be deemed to have lost, in the event of which no such motion shall be allowed within next six months. In the instant case, there is no dispute that a no confidence motion was brought against the petitioner by majority of the members of the G.P. In paragr aph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the Secretary of the G.P. did not convene the No Confidence Motion meeting with the stipulated period of time and as such, as per the requirement of the provision of Section 15, the matter was referred to the Anchalik Panchayat (AP) to convene the meeting of No Confidence Motion. Thus, it is an admitted fact by none other than the petition er that although the No Confidence Motion was brought against her, no such meeti ng was convened within the stipulated period of time, requiring the meeting to b e convened by the Anchalik Panchayat. At this stage, Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the requisition for No Confidence Motion against her, she had file d a writ petition being WP(C) 5538/2010, but the same was dismissed by order dat ed 10.10.2010. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the No Confidence Motion meeting was convened by the Anchalik Panchayat on 29.10.201 0 at 10 a.m. According to the petitioner, she had attended the office of the Anc halik Panchayat but no meeting was held to discuss the No Confidence Motion. The reafter, at 3.30 p.m., the officials of the Anchalik Panchayat allegedly informe d the petitioner that since some of the members of the G.P. did not come and fai led to attend the meeting, there would be no meeting on that day and that she wo uld be informed about the next date of the meeting. Accordingly, the petitioner, after waiting in the office of the Anchalik Panchayat till 5.30 p.m., left the venue. The aforesaid stand of the petitioner has been denied by the respondents . In the Misc. Case No. 3882/2010, filed by the 7 (seven) GP Members, out of 10( ten) G.P. Members, it has been stated that the meeting that was convened on 29.1 0.2010, could not held as the President of the Anchalik Panchayat failed to pres ide over the meeting as she was absent. Similar stand has been taken by the Pres ident of the Anchalik Panchayat in her affidavit filed on 18.2.2011. In the said affidavit, her specific stand is that although the meeting was called for and w as scheduled to be held on 29.10.2010 at 11’O clock at Mandia Anchalik Panchayat conference hall and she was supposed to preside over the No Confidence Motion m eeting but as he was unwell, she could not attend the meeting. According to the affidavit filed by her, she had furnished due intimation through e.mail. In the affidavit filed by the Executive Officer, Mandia Anchalik Panchay at, the aforesaid fact of convening the meeting on 29.10.2010 and resultant fail ure to hold the meeting in absence of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat ha s been reiterated. I have perused the records produced by Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. In the Register maintained, the minutes of the meeting held on 29.10.2010, the proceeding is reflected. The meeting was convened at 11 a.m. and the register reflect signatures of 10(ten) GP Members and also the signatur e of the petitioner. In the 2nd page of the proceedings dated 29.10.2010, it has been recorded that since the President of the Anchalik Panchayat was sick and h ad informed about her inability to attend the meeting, the meeting could not be held. If the meeting was convened but could not be held, same cannot be said t o be the resultant failure of the No Confidence Motion within the meaning of 2nd proviso to Section 15(1) and / or 2nd proviso to Section 15(5). As per the 2nd proviso to Section 15(1), a No Confidence Motion, if lost, no such motion is all owed in the next six months. Similarly, as per 2nd proviso to Section 15(5), if it is not possible to hold the meeting for a situation due to non-attendance of the requisite number of members in such meeting or meetings, as the case may be, the no confidence motion shall automatically stand cancelled and the motion sha ll be deemed to have lost, in the event of which no such motion shall be allowed within next six months. None of these situations is present in this case. It is a case in which although the meeting was scheduled to be held on 29.10.2010 but the same could not be held in absence of the President of the Anchalik Panchaya t. In such a situation, if the meeting was deferred and sought to be re-convened , no fault can be attributed to the respondents. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the respondents including the Anchalik Panchayat President, have manipulat ed the records so as to claim that, in fact, the meeting that was convened on 29 .10.2010, could not be held in absence of the President of the Anchalik Panchaya t. He has also questioned the copy of the e.mail that has been annexed to the af fidavit filed by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat. In my considered opinion, the e.mail in question need not detain us when the records clearly reflects that the meeting dated 29.10.2010 could not be hel d in absence of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat. As regards the claim of the petitioner that she was present in the meeting and left the venue at 5.30 p .m. when she was informed that the meeting could not be held in absence of some of the members of the G.P., same is found baseless from the aforesaid revelation made from the records. In the writ petition, the petitioner, although has not stated about her meeting the Anchalik Panchayat President on the date of the meeting i.e. 29.10.2010 but in the affidavit in reply, there has been development with the statement that, i n fact, the petitioner had met the Anchalik Panchayat President at the venue. If that was the position, she could have easily stated so in the writ petition. Ho wever, this aspect of the matter also need not detain us from concluding that th e meeting scheduled to be held on 29.10.2010, could not be conducted in absence of the Anchalik Panchayat President. In that kind of a situation, if the meeting was re-convened to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner, sam e cannot be said to be a violation of Section 15(1) and 15(5) of the Act. For all the aforesaid reasons and conclusion arrived at by me, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. Interim order passed on 15.11.2010 stands vacated.