R.S. Garg, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. A. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the Appellants, Mr. P. Pathak, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Mrs. B. Goyal, learned State Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. None for Respondent Nos. 6 to 9.

2. The Appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 20.5.2010 passed in WP(C) 5402/2009 by a learned Single Judge of this Court setting aside the resolution of No Confidence Motion taken against the Respondent No. 1 have come to this Court with a submission that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is patently bad, illegal and deserves to be set aside.

3. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ appeal are that number of the persons as required under the law moved a No Confidence Motion against the sitting President of the Gaon Panchayat. After receiving the said Motion, the said President fixed the meeting on 23.9.2009 for consideration of the Motion. However on a report by the Superintendent of Police of the area, the Deputy Commissioner issued an order on 22.9.2009 on the ground of law and order situation cancelled the meeting which was to be held on 23.9.2009 and directed that the meeting would be convened on 7.10.2009 in the Conference Hall of Zila Parishad, the venue other than the venue so scheduled. On 7.10.2009, as many as 8 (eight) persons attended the meeting and as the resolution says all the 8 (eight) persons conceded to No Confidence Motion.

4. Being aggrieved by the Resolution taken on 7.10.2009, the dissatisfied President of the Gaon Panchayat came to the High Court in the above referred writ petition with a submission that the Superintendent of Police was not entitled to make any application to the Deputy Commissioner nor the Deputy Commissioner was entitled to adjourn the meeting or in any case, fix the meeting on some other date at a different venue. It was also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner if had no authority to fix the date for convening of the meeting, then any resolution passed in such illegally convened meeting would be a bad resolution.

5. During the pendency of the writ petition, number of the applications for joining as parties, were filed. Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 appeared to have supported the cause of the Petitioner. Respondent No. 6 and 7 stated before the Court that they had not taken any part in the meeting and their signatures were forged. However, Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 submitted that the venue of the meeting was changed, time was short, therefore, before they could reach the venue of the meeting, the event was over and they could not cast their votes. Respondent Nos. 10 to 14 (newly added) supported the No Confidence Motion.

6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Superintendent of Police was not required to inform the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the meeting, the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in cancelling the meeting and was also not justified in changing the venue and fixing the date.

7. After going through the provisions of law, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the resolution taken in the meeting dated 7.10.2009 was absolutely illegal and cannot be allowed to stand. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellants have come before us.

8. Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for the Appellants at the threshold submitted that looking to the urgency/emergency/exigency of the situation if the Deputy Commissioner was required to adjourn the meeting then it must also be held that he would have powers to fix the date for convening of the meeting. It was also submitted that the lamed Single Judge was absolutely unjustified in holding that the Deputy Commissioner was not entitled to change the venue and was also wrong in holding that the resolution taken in the meeting 7.10.2009 was contrary to law.

9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that from a perusal of Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act