MC 1062/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI MC NO.1062/2010 IN WP(C) 1978/2010. Heard Mr. A. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant/resp ondent No.7 and Mr. P. P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the O.P./writ pe titioner. This application has been filed seeking vacation/ modification/alteration of the interim order dated 29.3.2010 passed in WP(C) No.1978 of 2010 by which this Cou rt had directed that the resolution dated 15.3.2010 (Annexure-D to the writ peti tion) shall not be given effect to. By the aforesaid resolution dated 15.3.2010 majority of the members of the Kukurmara Gaon Panchayat had expressed their no c onfidence in the President of the Gaon Panchayat i.e. the writ petitioner. It would appear from the averments made in the writ petition and the oral argume nts advanced at the hearing of the Misc. Case that three contentions, in the mai n, have been advanced in support of the challenge made against the resolution da ted 15.3.2010. Firstly, it is contended that notice of no confidence was not ser ved on the writ petitioner i.e. the President of the Gaon Panchayat as mandated by Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act. Secondly, it is contended that the mee ting to discuss the no-confidence was convened not by the Anchalik Panchayat as contemplated by Section 15(2) of the Act but the said meeting was so convened by the Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat. Lastly, it is contended that t he proceedings of the meeting in which the no confidence motion was passed were not conducted by resort to the process of secret ballot. In reply, the learned counsel for the applicant-respondent No.4 has pointed out an extract from the Peon Book (Annexure-6A to the Misc. Case) which shows that t he President of the Gaon Panchayat had refused to receive the notice of the no c onfidence. It is contended that in such a situation service of notice on the Pre sident of the Gaon Panchayat does not arise as the said requirement is impossibl e of performance. Arguing further, the learned counsel has pointed out that in s uch an event, under the provisions of the Act, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchay at is required to inform the President of the Anchalik Panchayat and thereafter the President of the Anchalik Panchayat is required to convene a meeting of the Gaon Panchayat to discuss the no confidence motion within seven days. Pointing t o the document enclosed as Annexure-7, dated 4th March, 2010, learned counsel su bmits that, as mandated by the Act, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had info rmed the President of Fekamari Anchalik Panchayat to convene a meeting of the Ku kurmara Gaon Panchayat. Insofar as the letter/notice dated 8.3.2010 convening a meeting of the Kukurmara Gaon Panchayat to discuss the no-confidence motion is c oncerned, it is pointed by the learned counsel that the said notice clearly indi cates that the meeting of the Gaon Panchayat has been called at the instance of the Fekamari Anchalik Panchayat. It is further pointed out from the resolution d ated 15.3.2010 (Annexure-9 to the Misc. Case) that the President of the Fekamari Anchalik Panchayat had presided over the meeting. In such circumstances, Sri Go swami, learned counsel for the applicant-respondent No.7, has contended that the requirement of Section 15(2) of the Act i.e. the necessity of convening a meeti ng of the Gaon Panchayat by the Anchalik Panchayat has been satisfied in the pre sent case. Insofar as the last contention is concerned, Sri Goswami has submitte d that it is not a mandatory requirement of law that the process of secret ballo t should be adopted while conducting the proceedings of a no-confidence motion. The submissions advanced on behalf of the parties have received the due and anxi ous consideration of the Court. The materials on record amply demonstrates that the writ petitioner, as the President of the Kukurmara Gaon Panchayat, was sough t to be served with a notice of the no-confidence which she refused to accept. S uch refusal made it impossible for the Gaon Panchayat authorities for the Gaon P anchayat authorities to serve the said notice on its President. The refusal to a ccept such notice gave rise to a situation where convening a meeting to discuss the no-confidence motion by the President of the Gaon Panchayat as contemplated by Section 15(1) of the Act became impossible. In such a situation the Secretary following the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act wrote to the President of the Fekamari Anchalik Panchayat informing the said authority of the relevant fac ts and requesting the said authority i.e. the President of Fekamari Anchalik Pan chayuat to convene a meeting of the Gaon Panchayat. This is evident from the Sec retary’s letter dated 4.3.2010. The notice dated 8th March, 2010 clearly recites that the meeting of the Gaon Panchayat is being convened at the instance of the Fekamari Anchalik Panchayat. Consequently, it cannot be held, at this stage, th at it is the Executive Officer of the Fekamari Anchalik Panchayat who had taken the decision to convene the meeting of the Gaon Panchayat as urged on behalf of the O.P./writ petitioner. The presence of the President of the Fekamari Anchalik Panchayat in the meeting held on 15.3.2010 is another strong indication in supp ort of the contention advanced on behalf of the applicant-respondent No.7. Insof ar as the issue of secret ballot is concerned, the same pertains to the merits o f the controversy which will be gone into at the time of hearing of the writ pet itioner by having due regard to the statutory provisions. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts the Court is of the view that it wil l not be proper to continue any further with the interim order dated 29.3.2010 p assed by this Court in WP(C) No.1978 of 2010. Accordingly, the aforesaid interim order dated 29.3.2010 is hereby vacated and the Misc. Case is allowed.