( 1 ) THE petitioner in WP No. 2029 of 1969 was the Chairman of Kadawad village Panchayat Committee in Karwar Taluk of North Kanara District. Against him a resolution of no confidence was passed on 16-9-1968. On an appeal, the resolution was suspended by the Assistant Commissioner of the division. That order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside in revision by the Divisional Commissioner of Belgaum by his order dated 20-5-1969. ( 2 ) ON 10-6-1969 the Chairman presented the first of the WPs. No. 2029 of 1969 to quash the said order of the Divisional Commissioner. ( 3 ) SIMULTANEOUSLY he proceeded to call further meetings of the panchayat Committee. At one such meeting held on 23-8-1969, the previous resolution of no confidence was cancelled. Upon appeal, the Assistant commissioner, held by an order dated 25-10-1969 that the said resolution of cancellation was wholly inoperative. ( 4 ) THE second of the WPs. No. 6413 of 1969 is filed by the Village panchayat Kadawad, and a member of the Panchayat, to quash the said order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 25-10-1969. In the said petition, the Chairman is impleaded as respondent 2, respondent 1, being the person who had successfully approached the Divisional Commissioner in the first matter. ( 5 ) THE argument in support of WP. No. 2029 of 1969 is that the Divisional commissioner has committed the error of applying a decision of this court regarding rule 6 of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Village panchavat No Confidence Rules before Us amendment and leaving out of account a subsequent ruling of this Court rendered after the amendment of the rule. Bust this does not advance the case of the petitioner to any extent. The rule as amended is brought in conformity with S. 37 (2) of the Act and provides that the Vice-Chairman may preside if the motion of no confidence is against the Chairman, that the Chairman may preside when the no confidence motion is against the Vice-Chairman, and that if the Vice-Chairman or the Chairman, as the case may be, so entitled to preside is not present, members present may elect one amongst them to preside. ( 6 ) NOW in this case as the motion of no-confidence was directed against the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman who was admittedly present at the meeting of 16-9-1968 could have presided. ( 6 ) NOW in this case as the motion of no-confidence was directed against the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman who was admittedly present at the meeting of 16-9-1968 could have presided. It is found however from the order of the Divisional Commissioner that the said Vice-Chairman who initially occupied the chair expressed his inability to preside over the meetig, because he was himself the prime mover of the motion of no confidence under consideration. Thereafter some other member was elected to the chair, and the meeting proceeded and adopted the resolution with the requisite majority. ( 7 ) TDE question is whether in these circumstances, the petitioner could sav that the entire proceedings became illegal or ineffective. The answer, in our opinion, should be in the negative. The reasons are obvious. If in a case of a motion of no-confidence against the Chairman, Vice-Chairman being present declines or refuses to preside, then if the argument for the petitioner is accepted and it is held that nobody else can preside, a single person, the Vice-Chairman, can successfully defeat a no-confidence motion even if it is supported bv every other member of the Panchayat. Simitar would be the result in the case of a no-confidence motion against a vice-Chairman if the Chairman behaves similarly. An interpretation which leads to such startling results which defeats the very purpose of the law, namely, that a Chairman or a Vice-Chairman against whom a no confidence motion with two-thirds majority is passed should vacate office, cannot be accepted. Indeed, declining or refusing to preside is equivalent to absence for that purpose. ( 8 ) WE hold, therefore, that by the Vice-Chairman declining to preside at ihe meeting in question, the Panchayat was not disabled from proceeding with the meeting under the Chairmanship of one of the members elected by them for the purpose. ( 9 ) THERE is thus no ground to interfere with the Divisional Commissioner's order impugned in WP. No. 2029 of 1969. ( 10 ) ONCE the order is so upheld, it follows that the original no-confidence motion became effective and the Chairman was bound to vacate office within 60 days after the order of the Divisional Commissioner, i. e. , before 20th July 1969, if the Deputy Commissioner had not already removed him by an express order. No. 2029 of 1969. ( 10 ) ONCE the order is so upheld, it follows that the original no-confidence motion became effective and the Chairman was bound to vacate office within 60 days after the order of the Divisional Commissioner, i. e. , before 20th July 1969, if the Deputy Commissioner had not already removed him by an express order. In any event, he ceased to be a Chairman after 19-7-69 and could not take any steps in that capacity. Subsequent meeting called by him, therefore, at which the resolution was passed, was not a properly convened meeting. That alone is sufficient to hold that the resolution of cancellation was no resolution of the Panchayat at all. Even if it should be assumed that it was an effective resolution, its effect is nothing from the point of view of the Chairman. Once the Chairman gets removed by force of a resolution of no-confidence passed against him, the result is that the position of Chairman is vacant, and the only way of filling the vacancy is by holding an election. A mere change of opinion expressed by a subsequent resolution is not sufficient to reinstate the Chairman who by force of the no-confidence resolution and the legal consequences thereof has vacated office. Both the writ petitions are therefore dismissed. --- *** --- .