1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the resolution dated 12.8.1996 passed against the petitioner removing him from the office of Sarpanch on carrying of no-confidence motion.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that some no-confidence motion application for taking no-confidence motion was submitted against the petitioner of which cognizance was taken by the competent authority and a meeting was directed to be held on 26.7.96. On 26.7.96, the meeting could not be held, therefore, according to the petitioner, the motion stood rejected and no meeting could be held for considering the said motion on 12.8.1996. According to the petitioner, the Presiding Officer had no power to adjourn the meeting, therefore, it must be held that adjournment of the meeting dated 26.7.96 would mean that the motion of no-confidence failed.

3. On the other hand, Shri Vijay Shukla learned Government Advocate submits that because of death of some Naib Tahsildar, the Presiding Officer could not attend the meeting or convene the same, therefore, it was required to be adjourned. He submits that the requirement of the law that the meeting must be hel