WP(C) 285/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The 8 petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Recquisionists ) initiated a no-confidence motion against the President (respondent No.8) of the Mahammedpur Joykrishnapur Gaon Panchayat. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of the 28th De cember 2009 meeting where the no-confidence motion was scheduled to be voted upo n, they have filed the present case. 2. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.8 along with his supporte rs had forcibly prevented the Recquisionists from participating in the meeting a nd only for such obstruction the quorum could not be achieved on 28.12.2009. On that count, the petitioners contend that the meeting should have been adjourned by applying the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 18 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’). 3. However the stand of the respondent No.8 is that since the meeting could not be held due to absence of the Recquisionists, the meeting would stand cance lled under the second proviso to Section 15(5) of the Act. 4. The official respondent Nos.3 and 5 in their affidavit have claimed that no disturbance was caused to the Recquisionists from attending the meeting sche duled on 28.12.2009. But the petitioners in their reply affidavit have categoric ally stated that after the writ petitioners arrived at the venue of the meeting on the scheduled time and date to vote in support of the no-confidence motion, t he respondent No.8 along with his supporters had forcibly restrained the petitio ners from entering the venue of the meeting. The petitioners also aver that brot her of the petitioner No.4 was severely assaulted on that date by the supporters of the respondent No.8 and the Lala P. S. Case No.305/09 on 28.12.2009 was regi stered under Section 341/324/34 of the IPC in connection with the above incident . 5. Having considered the rival contentions, it cannot be ruled out that the Recquisionists were forcibly obstructed by the supporters of respondent No.8 fr om participating in the meeting where the no-confidence motion against the Presi dent was to be considered for voting. 6. Surprisingly the respondent No.8 is absent today although this Court by its order dated 10.11.2010 had recorded that the case shall be taken up for fina l disposal on the next date, even if the respondent No.8 remains unrepresented. 7. In the above circumstances, having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the materials on record, I am of the co nsidered opinion that the order for cancellation of the meeting of 28.12.2009, c onvened in pursuant to the Court’s order dated 11.11.2009 in W P (C) No.5128/08 and W P (C) No.463/09 was not justified. Instead of canceling the meeting in the absence of quorum, the scheduled meeting of 28.12.2009 should have been dealt w ith under Section 18(2) of the Act. An order designed to defeat the cause of the requisitionists should not have been ordered on that date. Accordingly the meet ing should be considered to have been adjourned under Section 18(2) of the Act. 8. Having concluded thus, direction is issued to the Authorities to reconve ne the adjourned meeting on or before 20.12.2010, to vote on the no-confidence m otion against the respondent No.8. 9. Considering the history of litigation between the two groups and the par tisan role played by some of the Authorities, the meeting is ordered to be conve ned under the supervision of the Dy. Commissioner, Hailakandi (respondent No.3) by following the provisions of the Act. 10. Mr. B N Gogoi, learned Govt. Advocate would communicate this Court’s ord er to the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 to ensure due compliance. 11. The writ petition stands allowed with the above directions.