1. The petitioner is the present President of the third respondent Grama Panchayat. He is facing a No Confidence Motion. The notice regarding the intention to move the No Confidence Motion has been served on the authorised officer by the required number of Members of the Panchayat. Therefore, the said Officer has issued Ext. P1 notice dated 3.12.2002 proposing to convene the meeting. The said notice was despatched on 4.12.2002. It was received by the members on 7.12.2002. The meeting to consider the motion is scheduled to be held on 12.12.2002. The petitioner submits that there is only five clear days between the date of receipt of the notice and the date of meeting. Therefore, according to him, the meeting is convened in violation of S.157(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The said Section reads as follows:

"157(4) The Officer referred to in sub-s. (2) shall send by registered post to the elected members of the Panchayat concerned notice of not less than seven clear days of any meeting held under this section and the time appointed therefore. Notice regarding this shall be affixed in the office of the Panchayat."

2. Sub-ss. (3) and (4) are relevant for the purpose of this case. Sub-s. (3) says that the authorised officer shall convene a meeting of the Panchayat Committee to consider the No Confidence Motion on a date which is not later than fifteen working days from the date on which the notice under sub-s. (2) is delivered to him. So, the Legislature has fixed an outer limit for convening the meeting. The case of the petitioner is that the seven clear days contemplated under sub-s. (4) should be between the date of receipt of the notice and the date of convening of the meeting. If such an interpretation is accepted, the Members can dodge the receipt of the notice for a few days and effectively prevent any meeting scheduled to be held to consider the No Confidence Motion. Having regard to the time limit of fifteen days fixed in sub-s. (3), if the interpretation advanced by the petitioner to sub-s. (4) is accepted, it will defeat the operation of the provisions regarding the No Confidence Motion. It is a settled principle of interpretation of Statutes that an interpretation which will result in making the provision unworkable should not be adopted by the Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention urged by the petitioner regarding the interpretation of sub-s. (4). Therefore, the Original Petition fails and it is dismissed.