WA 235/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.K.GOEL HON BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY ( Goel, J) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 23.12.2010 of learned Sin gle Judge passed in WP( C) No. 5849/2009 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against no confidence motion passed against him on 9.12.2009 removing him from the post of President of No.58 Pairerchak Gaon Panchayat. The appellant was elected as President of No.58 Pairerchak Gaon Panchayat in th e election held in the year 2008 along with nine members. Respondent No.9 was el ected as Vice President. No confidence motion was moved by Respondent No.9 and m eeting to consider said no confidence motion was convened on 9.12.2009, wherein seven members out of nine members voted against the appellant. The motion was a ccordingly held to have been carried. The proceedings were recorded by the Secr etary of the Panchayat. It was recorded that the voting was held by secret ballo t and seven members voted in favour of no confidence motion. Thereafter, on a co mplaint made by two members, an enquiry was ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj to be conducted by the Block Development Officer, South Karimganj Development Block The said offi cer vide his report dated 17.12.2009( wrongly mentioned as 17.11.2009) gave a r eport that the votes were cast openly and not by secret ballot. Relying upon said report, the appellant approached this Court alleging violation of Section 18(5) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 requiring secret ballot, whic h vitiated the result of no confidence motion as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Forhana Begum Laskar vs. State of Assam and Ors, 2009(3) GLT 575. Learned Single Judge after considering the entire matter held that there was no violation of Section 18(5) of the Act as the voting was done by secret ballot. The finding of learned Single Judge is as under : Considered the arguments advanced by the contesting parties. Perused the relev ant records. The facts pleaded in the case would revolve in a narrow compass as to whether the matter was decided by secret ballot as required under section 18( 5) of the Act as well as, as to whether there was irregularities committed dur ing the special meeting as contended by the petitioner and the respondent No.7 and is required to be interfered with the spe cial meeting held on 09.12.2009 where no confidence motion against the writ pet itioner was passed. The record produced by the learned state Counsel as well as by the learned couns el appearing on behalf of the respondent No.9 would reveal that secret ballot wa s put into service in the meeting. It also revealed that seven members have cast votes in favour of no confidence motion and no irregularities were committed in the special meeting. We have heard Dr B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms B.Gayal, learne d Govt. Advocate appearing for the official respondents and Mr FU Borbhuiyan, le arned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no basis for rejecting the report of the Block Development Officer and to take the view that the voti ng was done by secret ballot and not in open manner and in these circumstance s the decision of the Full Bench in Forhana Begum Laskar( Supra) is applicable. We are unable to accept this submission. No doubt the Block Development Officer has given a report to the effect that the voting was done openly and not by secret ballot, the said report cannot be treated as conclusive. The S ecretary of the Panchayat recorded the proceedings of the meeting of the no con fidence notion immediately and seven members out of nine members voted in favour of no confidence motion. No doubt, requirement of secret ballot is mandatory as held by the Full Bench of this Court, but the circumstances of the case do n ot show that no secret ballot was done. Voting openly by two third members agai nst the appellant shows that even by secret ballot they could not be in his fa vour. In the circumstances, report by the Block Development Officer could not b e accepted, being against the record. Moreover, the appellant having lost confid ence of two third majority, has no right to continue as President of the Panchay at. In the facts and circumstances there is no error in the finding of learned S ingle Judge that there was no violation of Section 18(5) of the Act. We thus, do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dism issed. No costs.