WP(C) 656/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms VL Singh, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 as well as Mr. HRA Choudhury , learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 to 14. The petitioner who was the president of Panchgram Gaon Panchayat, by the present petition, has challenged the proceeding dated 10.2.2009 of the said Gaon Pancha yat wherein the resolution expressing want of confidence on him has been accepte d by nine members out of total ten members. The ground of challenge to the said proceeding is that though sub section 5 of S ection 18 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 requires that the motion of no confid ence is to be decided by secret ballot, the said procedure has not been followed while expressing the want of confidence on the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to sub section 5 of Section 18 of the Assam Panchayat Act as well as the Full Bench decision of this Court in F orhana Begum Laskar -vs- State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2009 (3) GLT 575 has submitted that the no confidence motion is to be decided by secret ballot and in the instant case the same having not been done the entire proceeding dated 10.2 .2009 is contrary to the provision of Section 18 (5) of the Act and as such liab le to be set aside. The learned State counsel producing the relevant records has submitted that the provision of Section 18(5) of the Act has been followed as the decision relating to the no confidence motion was taken by adopting the secret ballot procedure, and nine out of 10 members cast their vote in favour of the motion expressing wa nt of confidence and as such the resolution was adopted on 10.2.2009. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 to 14 has also su bmitted that the secret ballot procedure has been adopted in the instant case as required under sub section 5 of Section 18 of the Act. To appreciate the rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties, I hav e perused the records as produced by Ms VL Singh, learned State counsel. It appears from the record that the secret ballot procedure was adopted while de ciding the no confidence motion brought against the petitioner. The proceeding d ated 10.2.2009 also reveals that nine members out of ten members cast their vote in favour of the motion. That being the position, the ground on which the proceeding dated 10.2.2009 has been put to challenge is non-existent. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No cost.