WA 377/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE U.B. SAHA The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 3-8-2010 of a learned S ingle Judge in WP(C) No.4527/09. The appellant was the President of Abhoypukhuri Gaon Panchayat. A no con fidence motion was passed against him in a meeting held on 15-10-09. According to the petitioner the no confidence motion notice was issued o n 8-9-09 by seven out of ten members of the Gaon Panchayat. In terms of the proc edure laid down by Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act 1994 the Secretary of t he Gaon Panchayat is required to refer the matter to the President of the Pancha yat for convening a meeting and if the President of the Panchayat does not conve ne a meeting, the matter is required to be referred to the President of the Anch alik Panchayat. It is noted by the learned Single Judge in para 3 of the order under app eal, that the appellant admittedly did not convene any meeting in terms of Secti on 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. Consequently the matter was referred to the jurisdictional Anchalik Panhayat to convene a meeting and that is when the n o confidence motion was adopted against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged only one contention before u s and that is to the effect that the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat did not bri ng it to the notice of the appellant that a no confidence motion has been moved against him. Apart from t he fact that this ground was not even urged before the lear ned Single Judge who, therefore, had no opportunity to deal with such a contenti on, we find in para 3 of the order under appeal that there is an admission by th e appellant that he did not convene the meeting within the requisite period of 1 5 days as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. Thi s admission is clearly based on the knowledge of the appellant, not only about t he true facts of the case but also of the existence of the no confidence motion against him. Since no other issue has been urged before us we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.