1. The petitioner is admittedly an Elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Aabas, Tehsil Karera, District Shivpuri (M.P.). On 4.2.98 some members of the Gram Panchayat, Aabas submitted a notice for calling a meeting of no confidence against him The competent Authostity on being satisfied fixed 19.2.98 as the date for meeting which has been annexed as Annexure P-2. The Respondent No.3 was appointed as Presiding Officer to preside over the meeting of no- confidence. But before the date fixed he adjourned the meeting for 5.3.98 illegally and against the provisions of law. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the order Annexure P-1 dated 19.2.98 and also prayed for a direction to the respondents not to conduct the meeting of no-confidence- against him for the further period of one year."

2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha up-Sarpanch, Janapad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh A vishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), a notice is necessary to be given under clause (1) of this rule. Clause- 3 provides that on receipt of the notice the Prescribed Authority has to satisfy himself about admissibility of the notice with reference to sections 21 (3) 28 (3) and 35 (3) and on being satisfied has to fix the date, time and place for the meeting which shall not be more than 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Under the same provision in the notice of such meeting specified date, time and place has to be dispatched through the Secretary to every member of Panchayat concerned 7 days before the meeting. In the present case a notice as required under clause 1 was issued by the Prescribed Authority and the date was fixed within the time allowed by law. It was 19th February 1998. The learned counsel further contended that Tehsildar was authorised to preside over the meeting. However, before the date fixed the Presiding Officer, i.e., respondent No.3 adjourned the meeting and fixed date 5.3.98 which is a clear violation of law. He, therefore, urged that the adjournment made by the Presiding Officer is illegal on two counts: firstly, the Tahsildar i.e. Presiding Officer had no jurisdiction to adjourn the meeting, and; secondly, the meeting could not be adjourned to be period beyond 15 days. In support of his contention he pressed into service 1996 JLJ 231 (Hargovind Johari v. Zila Panchayat, Morena and others). The learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that powers-of adjournment is inherent as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in 1975 JLJ 500 (Shankarlal v. Collector. Mandsaurand others) and as such it could not be said that the meeting cannot be adjourned. He also argued that in 1997 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 49 = 1997 (2) MPLJ 175 (Dhumadandhin v. State of M.P.) it has been held that even if a meeting is held beyond period of 15 days from the date of notice it cannot be said to be invalid. Learned counsel referred to para 5 of this case.

3. The argument advanced before me by the learned counsel for the parties raise two important questions: The first point for the determination is, as to whether, the meeting could be adjourned and in case it could be adjourned whether it could be adjourned by the Presiding Officer, The next question is as to whether the meeting could be adjourned beyond 15 days from the date of notice.

4. As far as the first question relating to power of adjournment is concerned, I may mention that this matter stands concluded by the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 1975 JLJ 500 (supra). In this case it was specifically laid down:

"Subject to specific provisions made for the purpose, the power of adjournment is inherent for a proper conduct of business where business is to be transacted at a meeting of the assembly. An adjourned meeting is merely a continuation and not a new meeting." The