WP(C) 4289/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.7 to 19. The grievance of the petitioner as transpires is that he was elected on 19.12.20 08 as the president of Bhawanipur Anchalik Panchayat in the first meeting of tha t panchayat. The petitioner claims that from a notice related to a caveat filed by the private respondents in this Court he for the first time came to learn tha t there had been a notice for convening a meeting for consideration of a no conf idence notice as set in in motion by the 13 members of the said panchayat. In pa ra-6, the petitioner further contends that: That the petitioner begs to state that the members of the Anchalik Panchayat di d not serve the letter upon the petitioner and Executive Officer also did not pl ace the letter before the petitioner for approval for convening the meeting of n o confidence motion and without placing the same before the petitioner directly forwarded to the Zilla Parishad. Therefore the petitioner approached the Zilla P arishad praying for not to convene any meeting in terms of the said letter dated 18.7.11 but the Chief Executive Officer, Barpeta Zilla Parishad vide his letter dated 16.8.2011 decided to hold the meeting and fixing 25.8.2011 for convening the meeting. It is contended by the petitioner that assuming by denying that even if the noti ce was served on him on 26.07.2011 then also the matter cannot be referred by th e Executing Officer on 09.08.2011 for convening a meeting by the President of th e Zilla Parishad as per Rule 43 of the Assam Panchayat Act. The petitioner challenged the action as taken by the respondent No.6 for conveni ng a meeting since it was convened in contravention of the provisions of Rule 43 of the Assam Panchayat Act. The private respondent has not filed any affidavit in opposition despite notice. However, the State respondents have filed affidavit in opposition to contend th at the averments regarding denial of knowledge of the notice by the writ petitio ner is not at all correct. The State respondents have submitted that the petitio ner is impeding ’no confidence motion’ as is set to remove him as the President of Bhawanipur Anchalik Panchayat. The notice was received in the office on 25.07 .2011. Accordingly, it was placed in the file for necessary approval on 26.07.20 11, but the petitioner did not approve holding of a special meeting to determine the fate of no confidence motion within the period of time as stipulated in Sec tion 43 of Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. Only thereafter, the matter was referred t o the Zilla Parishad with intimation to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta by memo randum No.BDB/NCM/04/2011-12/140 dated 09.08.2011. On consideration of the rival contentions this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s denial of knowledge cannot be accepted in presence of the notes dat ed 26.07.2011 and 09.08.2011 in file No.BDB/MCN/04/2011-12 as produced by the le arned Government Advocate. Let us now examine whether the reference as made on 09.08.2011 by the Executive Officer for convening a meeting by the President of the Zilla Parishad to determ ine the fate of the said ’no confidence motion’ is proper and in conformity to p rovisions of Section 43 of the Assam Panchayat Act. It is admitted that on 26.07 .2011 the notice was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner but he refused t o take its cognizance. The Executive Officer waited till 09.08.2011 when he made reference to the President of the Zilla Parishad with intimation to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. From para-5 of the affidavit in opposition it evinces clearly that on 09.08.2011 itself the matter was referred to the President, Zilla Parishad with intimation to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. The time frame of 15 days for decision to be taken by the petitioner does not come to an end on 09.08.2011. The sweep of 1 5 days as stipulated in Rule 43 of the Assam Panchayat Act includes 09.08.2011. Therefore, the said reference by the Executive Officer was absolutely illegal an d bad in law. In consequence thereof, the said reference dated 09.08.2011 is qua shed. For upholding the mandate of law, the petitioner is directed to convene a meetin g within a period of 15 days from today without fail, else it is made clear that he would be held responsible for deliberate violation of the Court’s order. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner for doing his needful. Whether the copy is furnished or not, 15 days would start from this day i.e. 20. 12.2011. With this direction as indicated hereinabove, the writ petition is partly allowe d. Interim order, as passed earlier, stands vacated.