The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for direct election of the President of a Gaon Panchayat and the process for filling vacancies in the office of the President as per the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By this common judgment and order, I, on the request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, propose to dispose of both the writ petitions, for, the two writ petitions are so closely inter-connected with each other that the decision in any of the two writ petitions would have a bearing on the out-come of the other writ petition.

2. Let me, now, set out the material facts and various stages, which have given rise to the present two writ petitions:

WP(C) No. 3021/2005

(i) The petitioners herein, six in number, are duly elected members of Balabari Gaon Panchayat, which falls under the district of Darrang, the petitioner No. 1, namely, Abul Hussain, having been elected as Vice-President of the said Gaon Panchayat. When the respondent No. 8 herein, namely, Mrs. Shamsun Nahar, was functioning as the elected President of the said Gaon Panchayat, the petitioner No. 1, herein, namely, Abul Hussain, who was, then, functioning as Vice-President of the said Gaon Panchayat, submitted along with three others a requisition to the respondent No. 8 aforementioned seeking a meeting to be held for discussing a motion of no-confidence against the respondent No. 8, who was, as indicated hereinbefore, occupying the office of the President of the said Gaon Panchayat. The respondent No. 8, acting on the said requisition, convened a meeting on 1.1.2005. In the meeting, so held, on 1.1.2005, the motion of no-confidence was passed against the respondent No. 8. In course of time, respondent No. 8 handed over the charge to the petitioner No. 1 and, accordingly, petitioner No. 1 has been functioning as the in-charge President of the said Gaon Panchayat. While the petitioner No. 1 was so functioning as President of the said Gaon Panchayat, a notice was issued, on 8.4.2005, by the respondent No. 5, namely, Block Development Officer, Pub-Mangaldoi Block, under whose territory falls the said Gaon Panchayat, informing the petitioner and other members of the said Gaon Panchayat that as per direction of the respondent No. 2, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, a meeting would be held, on 20.4.2005, for electing President of the said Gaon Panchayat. Impugning the notice, dated 8.4.2005, aforementioned, the present petitioners have approached this Court with the help of the present writ petition, i.e. WP(C) 3021/2005 seeking to get the notice set aside and quashed on the ground, inter alia, that under the scheme of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), particularly, Section 6(1)(b) and Section 10 thereof read with Rule 53 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules 1995, (in short, "the said Rules") the office of the President has to be filled up directly by holding election for the said post by the State Election Commission, i.e., respondent No. 7 herein, whereas the impugned notice seeks to fill up the office of the President of the said Gaon Panchayat by an indirect election, which is impermissible in law.

WP(C) No. 5211/2005

(ii) While the above writ petition, namely, WP(C) No. 3021/2005 aforementioned was pending for disposal, respondent No. 8 herein filed a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 5211/2005, her case being, inter alia, that under the provisions of Section 15 of the said Act, meeting, on the motion of no confidence against the President of a Gaon Panchayat, has to, be convened by the Secretary of the Panchayat, but since the meeting on the motion of no-confidence had been convened, on 1.1.2005, by the President herself, the meeting, so held, was without jurisdiction and the no-confidence motion passed against her as the President of the said Gaon Panchayat shall be treated as non est.

3. I have heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3021/2005 and respondent No. 8 in WP(C) No. 5211/2005 I have also heard Mr. BC Choudhury, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents in both the petitions, and M