The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, the strict adherence to its requirements, and the consequences of non-compliance, emphasizing the importance of following the statutory provisions.

Amitava Roy, J.

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by what she perceives to be a contravention of the precepts of Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in carrying the no confidence motion against her as the President of No. 117 Batarhat Gaon Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the 'Panchayat') and the consequential order dated 5.5.2003 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri permitting the Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat to discharge and function of the President thereof till fresh elections are held for the office of President.

2. I have heard Mr. A. Sharif, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. P. Roy, learned State Counsel for the official Respondents as well as Agamoni Anchalik Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the 'Anchalik Panchayat') and Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Islam, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 7 to 13.

3. The primary facts have to be noticed to resolve the controversy. The case of the Petitioner as set out in the writ petition is that she belongs to scheduled caste community and she was duly elected as the President of the Gaon Panchayat in the election held in the year 2001. The private Respondent No. 7 is the Vice President and the private Respondent Nos. 8 to 13 are the other members of the Panchayat. On 17.2.2003, 7 members submitted a requisition before the Petitioner for convening a meeting for no confidence motion for her removal from the office of the President. As no action was taken thereon, the Secretary of the Panchayat under Section 15 of the Act referred the matter to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat on 4.3.2003. The President of the Anchalik Panchayat by letter dated 11.3.2003 asked the Petitioner to submit an explanation in respect of the proposed no confidence motion. The Petitioner has contended that the notice did not bear any mention about the proposed no confidence motion against her. The Petitioner, however, submitted her explanation on 12.3.2003. In the meantime, however on 11.3.2003 the Executive Officer, Anchalik Panchayat issued a notice convening a special meeting of the Gaon Panchayat for moving the no confidence motion against her on 17.3.2003. The meeting was, thereafter held in which the Petitioner. Vice President of the Panchayat and all members thereof participated. The meeting was also attended by several members of the various other Gaon Panchayats as well as the Vice President of the Anchalik Panchayat. The meeting was presided over by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat. In the said meeting, the proposed no confidence motion was carried by secret ballots by a majority of 7 votes in favour of the motion and 3 against.

4. This Court by order dated 29.4.2003 issued Rule, but declined to grant interim relief as prayed for to stall further action on the basis of the no confidence motion. Thereafter, a communication dated 5.5.2003 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri permitting the Vice President of the Gaon Panchayat to discharge the duties and functions of the President thereof pending fresh elections.

5. In the counter filed by the Respondent Nos. 7 to 13, it has been strongly contended that the meeting for moving the no confidence motion against the Petitioner held on 17.3.2003 was as per the requirements of Section 15(1) and 45(4) of the Act and that as the Petitioner had lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the Gaon Panchayat, the same was carried against her. According to the answering Respondents, the communication addressed by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat on the failure to convene the meeting was received by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat on 5.3.2003 and within a week there form a notice was issued on 11.3.2003 requiring the petitioner to submit her explanation by 13.3.2003. Eventually, the especial meeting was held on 17.3.2003 within 7 days from 11.