WA 350/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. SAIKIA Sharma, J Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant as well Mrs. B. Sharma Goyal, learned State Counsel. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge finally disposing of the writ petition being WP(C) 2687/20 11. By the said order, it has been provided that the No Confidence Motion that w as brought against the appellant on 18.4.2011, shall be brought to its logical c onclusion taking recourse to the provision of Section 18(5) of the Assam Panchay at Act, 1994. The No Confidence Motion was brought against the petitioner by the members of the Gaon Panchayat. In terms of Section 18(5) of the Act. The motion was to be decided by secret ballot, but instead it was decided by raising of ha nds. It was on that technicality, the No Confidence Motion resolution adopted in the particular meeting was interfered with. On perusal of the impugned order da ted 14.11.2011, it appears that the parties to the proceeding agreed for disposa l of the matter for compliance of Section 18(5) of the Act. 3. Mr. P.K Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant, however, submi ts that since the resolution adopted against the petitioner has been set aside, may be on technical ground, but with the setting aside of the said resolution, t he entire No Confidence Motion against the appellant also stood terminated and t hat unless a fresh motion is brought against the petitioner as per the requireme nt of Section 15(1) of the Act, the same very motion cannot be tested in terms o f Section 18(5) of the Act. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the de cision of the apex Court reported in (1992) 3 SCC 1 ( Shree Chamundi Mopeds Lt d. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras) . 4. Countering the above argument, Mrs. Goyal, learned State Counsel submits that the order impugned in this appeal being an order passed with the consent o f the parties, the appellant is precluded from challenging the said order. She a lso submits that since the resolution has been set aside on technical ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 18(5) of the Act, same by itself wil l not mean that the No Confidence Motion brought against the petitioner has spen t its force. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the l earned counsel for the parties and have also considered the entire materials on record. The decision on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance i.e. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. (Supra), is on the question of interpre tation of interim order and final order. Quashing of an order results in the res toration of the position as it stood on the date of passing of the order, which has been quashed. In the instant case, only the No Confidence Motion resolution adopted by raising hands, has been set aside, meaning thereby the No Confidence Motion requisition stood revived on the date of quashing of the resolution. 6. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order by which direction has been issued to discuss the No Confidence Motion in compliance of Section 18(5) of the Act. 7. If the members of the Gaon Panchayat in question want to pursue with the No Confidence Motion requisition, we see no reason as to why they should be pre cluded from doing so, subject however, to the condition that the ultimate result will have to be in terms of the requirement of Section 18(5) of the Act, as has been provided for in the impugned order. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order and acco rdingly the writ appeal stands disposed of, without however, any order as to cos ts.