1. Can a meeting summoned with a view to express no confidence can be adjourned for want of quorum. This precise question has been raised in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The brief facts which have led to the filing of this petition be noticed as under.

3. The petitioner is a Member of Zila Panchayat, District Morena. Some Members of the Zila Panchayat moved the competent authority for getting a meeting convened for the purposes of expressing no confidence. This meeting was scheduled to be held on 9th of December, 1995 at 11.30 A.M. The presiding officer found that quorum was not available. He adjourned the meeting to 20th of December, 1995. The information given by the presiding officer that the meeting has been adjourned from 9th of December, 1995 to 20th of December, 1995 is contained in Annexure P/1. This is being impugned in the present petition, As indicated above, the basic challenge is that a meeting/called for expressing no confidence cannot be adjourned for want of quorum. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as the requisite members of the Zila Panchayat were not present, the meeting should be deemed to have failed.

4. The stand taken by the petitioner is being opposed by the State. The basic reliance is being placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Shankerlal v. Collector, Mandsaur and others, 1975 JLJ 500. The aforementioned authority supports the respondents that a meeting for no confidence can also be adjourned. As this position is sought to be distinguished on the ground that the provisions of the staute which wre there before there Lordships in the above case are different from the provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, it would be apt to notice the statutory provisions in both the Acts i.e., Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1962) and Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993). The relevant statutory provisions are sections 24 of the Act of 1962 and sections 35 of the Act of 1993. These be noticed and read as under:

Act of 1962

24. Non-confidence motion against Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch.- (1) .On a motion of no-confidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than one half of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office with effect from the date immeditely next after the date on which such motion is passed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder, a Sarpanch or an Up-sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no-confidence is discussed against him but such meeting shall be presided over by an officer of the Government as the prescribed authority may appoint for the purpose. However, the Sarpanch or the Up-sarpanch as the case may be, shall have a right to speak and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of the meeting.

(3) A meeting for the purposes of this section shall be held in the manner prescribed. Act of 1993

35. No confidence Motion against President and Vice-president - (1) On a motion of no confidence being passed by Zila Panchayat by resolution passed by a majority of not less than three forth or the members present and voting and such majority is more than two-third of the total number of members constituting the Zila Panchayat for the time being the President or the Vice-president against whom such motion is passed shall cease to hold office forthwith.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder, President or Vice-President shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no confidence is discussed against him. Such meeting shall be convened in such a