Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.P. Barua, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 8 to 13 and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. None appears for respondent No. 5 despite service of notice.

2. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. Challenge in this writ petition is adoption of a resolution of no confidence against the petitioner who was the President of Ghilamara Anchalik Panchayat in a special meeting held on 27.7.2015. Eight members of the Anchalik Panchayat submitted a requisition on the subject of no confidence against the petitioner addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur with a copy to, amongst others, the Block Development Officer and Ex-Officio Secretary of Ghilamara Anchalik Panchayat.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that the requisition was not addressed to the petitioner and the said requisition was not placed before the President and therefore, she was not aware of the motion for no confidence. He, however, submits that though it appears from the record that a note was purportedly prepared and put up before her, the note was not actually put up. But assuming that it was so put up, the President (the petitioner) could have convened the meeting on or before 17.7.2015 i.e. within a period of 15 days from the date of knowledge which would be 2.7.2015 as the note was stated to be put up on that date. However, without waiting for expiry of 15 days as stipulated under Section 43 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, for short the 1994 Act, the Secretary forwarded the requisition to the Zilla Parishad on 13.7.2015 and therefore, the very initiation of the proceeding of no confidence motion is bad in law.

5. The second submission of Mr. Choudhury is that after obtaining due approval from the President of the Zilla Parishad, the Chief Executive Officer issued a notice on 16.7.2015 convening a special meeting for the purpose of considering the no confidence motion on 24.7.2015. The meeting was accordingly held in the office chamber of the President of the Zilla Parishad and on that day only 5 members were present apart from the petitioner. Sensing that no confidence motion would not be carried out as minimum of 6 members are needed, it was contrived to postpone the meeting and the Chief Executive Officer lent his support to the requisitionists in purportedly adjourning the meeting that was to be held on 24.7.2016. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that the Chief Executive Officer has no role to play either in presiding over the meeting or in conducting the proceeding. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that the meeting having been held on 24.7.2015 and no confidence motion having not been adopted against the petitioner it would be deemed that the motion had been lost. But the Chief Executive Officer, again issued a notice dated 24.7.2015, proposing to convene the meeting on 27.7.2015 for consideration of the no confidence motion. No approval of the Zilla Parishad was also obtained while issuing the said notice dated 24.7.2015 and no authority being vested upon the Chief Executive Officer to issue notice for convening the special meeting to discuss the no confidence motion under the provisions of the 1994 Act, consequent holding of the meeting on 27.7.2016 as well as adoption of the resolution against the petitioner must be annulled as contrary to law. In support of his submission, Mr. Choudhury has relied on the following decisions – Ali Ahmed Mazumdar vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2011 6 GLR 175, Sita Satnami vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2010 (3) GLT 291 and Karun Kanti Malakar & Ors. vs. Nosir Ahmed Mazumdar & Ors., reported in 2010 (3) GLT 415.

6. Mr. Barua does not dispute the facts articulated by Mr. Choudhury. He has, however, submitted that it is absolutely incorrect that meeting was held on 24.7.2016 a