WP(C) 4835/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The challenge in this writ petition is to Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. The principal grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is directed agains t Section 15(1) of the Act which reads as follows :- 15. No confidence motion against the President and Vice President.- (1) Every P resident or Vice President shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith when resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of two third of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat. We may note that in Marion Begum vs. The State of Assam and other connected matt ers decided on 12-6-2009 a Division Bench of this court considered the constitut ional validity of Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act. After an elaborate disc ussion it was held that the Section is constitutionally valid. We have no reason to disagree with the view taken by the Division bench and we d o not think that this is an appropriate case to refer the matter to a larger Ben ch. Dr B Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a violati on of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as Section 15(3) of the Act postul ates a hearing to be given to the President or the Vice President who is sought to be removed. But Section 15(1) does not postulate any such hearing. There is no doubt that an opportunity of hearing is given when vote is taken on a resolution. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention urged. We may also note that Section 15(3) of the Act relates to misconduct of the Pres ident or the Vice President while Section 15(1) of the Act relates to a vote of confidence in the President or the Vice President. Both operate in different fie lds. The writ petition is dismissed.