The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, regarding the procedure and timetable for bringing a no-confidence motion are directory in nature, and failure to maintain the time limit stipulated therein shall have no bearing on the resolution passed in a specially convened meeting expressing want of confidence in the President or the Vice-President.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. The Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the proceeding of the Jamunamukh Gaon Panchayat dated 18.5.05, adopting no-confidence motion brought against her by the members of the said Gaon Panchayat, on the ground that the meeting was not properly convened by the President of the Binakandi Anchalik Panchayat, as required under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. The writ petition is before this Court by virtue of the order dated 2nd February, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, referring the same to a larger Bench.

2. The facts involved in this writ petition, in brief, is that on 12.4.05 a notice of no confidence was served on the Petitioner by 7 (seven) members of Jamunamukh Gaon Panchayat, expressing want of confidence on the Petitioner, who is the President of the said Gaon Panchayat. Since the Petitioner did not convene the meeting of the Gaon Panchayat to discuss the no confidence motion, the Secretary of the said Gaon Panchayat vide communication dated 29.4.05 informed the President of Binakandi Anchalik Panchayat about non convening of such meeting by the Petitioner and requested him to convene a meeting of the Gaon Panchayat, as required under Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (in short 'the Act'). The President of the Anchalik Panchayat on the body of the said communication on 29.4.05 directed the Block Development Officer, who is the Secretary of the said Anchalik Panchayat, to take appropriate action, accordingly, the Secretary on 4.5.05 informed the Petitioner about convening of the meeting of the Gaon Panchayat by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat, fixing 11.5.05, for consideration of the said no confidence motion. The Petitioner at this stage approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3396/05, challenging the said notice. Though initially the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.5.05 granted an interim order keeping the discussion on the no confidence motion in abeyance, the same was vacated on 13.5.05, thereby paving the way for discussion on the said motion by the Gaon Panchayat. Since there could not be any discussion on the no confidence motion on 11.5.05, as fixed vide notice dated 4.5.05, in view of the Courts order, another date being 18.5.05 was fixed for consideration of the said motion by the said Gaon Panchayat. Accordingly the meeting of the said Gaon Panchayat was held, which was presided over by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat, to discuss the motion brought by the members expressing want of confidence on the Petitioner. The said motion was passed by a majority of two third of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat. Hence the present writ petition.

3. We have heard Mr. Chouhan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mrs. Goyal the learned State Counsel as well as Mrs. Arfia Islam, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 to 12.

4. Mr. Chouhan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the entire proceeding of the meeting dated 18.5.05, wherein the no confidence motion against her was adopted, is violative of the provision of the Act, as under Section 15(1) of the Act, when the President of the Gaon Panchayat does not convene the meeting for discussing the no-confidence motion brought against him, the President of the Anchalik is required to convene the meeting of the Gaon Panchayat for discussing such motion, but according to the learned Counsel, in the present case it is evident from the initial and subsequent notices dated 4.5.05 and 16.5.05 that such meeting were not convened by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat but by the Secretary of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat only. The further submission of the learned Counsel is that in any case, by notice dated 16.5.05 the date for holding such meeting was fixed as 18.5.05, thereby, giving only 2 days time, though under Section 45(4) of the Act minimum 7 (seven) clear days notice is required for holding such meeting. The