JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner challenges the validity of the resolution passed by the gram Panchayat, Alori, on 8-5-1971 by which a motion of no-confidence was passed against him resulting in his removal from the office of Sarpanch. ( 2. ) THE notice, dated 30-4-1971 (Annexure A to the petition) was issued by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Alori under rule 4 of the M. P. Gram panchayats (No confidence Motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Rules, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the rules) convening the meeting for the purpose of section 24 of the M. P. Panchayats Act to consider the motion of no-confidence moved against the Sarpanch petitioner, Shankarlal. The time of the meeting required to be specified therein by virtue of rule 4 of the Rules was stated as 8-5-1971 at 11a. M. However, at 11 A. M. on 8-5-1971, no panch was present at the specified place of the meeting on account of which the Presiding Officer, respondent No. 2, adjourned the meeting and fixed the same to be held after one hour at 12 noon, the same day. A notice to this effect adjourning the meeting by one hour was also affixed on the notice board. Such action, being taken by respondent No. 2 resulting in adjournment of the meeting to a time one hour later the same day, cannot be disputed in view of annexure E dated 8-5-1971, which contains the record of the entire proceedings of 8-5-1971 in the hand of respondent No. 2 himself. Annexure E to the petition, being recorded by respondent No. 2, is expressly admitted in the return filed on behalf of respondents 16 to 23 and there is no denial of the same by the other respondents including respondent No. 2 on whose behalf no return has been filed. The fact of such an adjournment of the scheduled meeting is, therefore, undisputed. In the adjourned meeting held later, the same day, a resolution was passed accepting the motion of no-confidence by the requisite majority. It is for this reason that the present petition has been filed. ( 3. ) SHRI S. L. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged only one ground in support of the petition. In the adjourned meeting held later, the same day, a resolution was passed accepting the motion of no-confidence by the requisite majority. It is for this reason that the present petition has been filed. ( 3. ) SHRI S. L. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged only one ground in support of the petition. He argues primarily that there was no power at all to adjourn such a meeting, there being no provision to that effect in that Rules which prescribe the entire procedure for such a meeting held under section 24 of the Act. Alternatively he argues that no Panch having been present at 11 a. m. on 8-5-1971, which was the time specified for the meeting under rule 4, there was no power available to respondent No. 2 to adjourn the meeting to any time later the same day and the adjourned meeting could have been held only on the following day or some future date which may have been fixed for this purpose as provided in sub-section (4) of section 30 of the Act which applies to such a situation. Shri Garg, argues that there being no provision in the M. P. Gratn Panchayats (No-confidence motion against sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Rules 1964 for adjournment of such a meeting or the manner in which it could be adjourned, for this purpose sub-section (4) of section 30 applies which is the general provisions relating to meetings of the gram Panchayat. In reply, Shri P. L. Mehta, Additional Government Advocate, at first, argued that there was no adjournment of the meeting and it was held at the time specified in the notice (Annexure A ). However, being faced with the contents of Annexure E written in the hand of respondent No. 2 himself, which clearly records the fact of such adjournment and express admission to this effect by respondents Nos. 15 to 23, there being no denial by any one else, Shri Mehta ultimately abandoned that stand. Finally, the only argument advanced by Shri Mehta is that sub-section (4) of section 30 of the act it not attracted to such a meeting and there being no provision to the contrary in section 24 of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, the power of the presiding officer was unfettered in this respect. ( 4. Finally, the only argument advanced by Shri Mehta is that sub-section (4) of section 30 of the act it not attracted to such a meeting and there being no provision to the contrary in section 24 of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, the power of the presiding officer was unfettered in this respect. ( 4. ) THE primary argument of Shri Garg is difficult to accept more so because that would lead to the curious result that a meeting convened from the purposes of section 24 of the Act cannot be adjourned for any reason, whatsoever. That result will have to follow even when the entire body of the panchas and the Presiding Officer are unanimour in iavous of an adjournment. Such a conclusion would be contrary to the settled principles applicable to adjournment of meeting. In Shacklector on Meetings, Fourth Edition Chapter 9 relating to adjournment, it is stated as follows: "there is a power at common law to adjourned meeting, the right is vested in the assembly itself, unless there are particular regulations which vest this powrer in the chairman. " (At page 48)Further at page 51, the various causes for adjournment includefailure to make a meeting (i. e. no quorum) as one of them. Under the heading procedure Upon Adjournment, it is stated as follows: - "an adjourned meeting is deemed to be a continuation of the former meeting and no new notice is necessary unless the regulations so prescribe", (at page 50.) ( 5. ) THE result is, that 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 and an adjourned meeting is merely a continuation and not a new meeting. The reason for existence of such a power is obvious, for this reason alone the primary argument of Shri Garg that there was no power at all to adjourn the meeting must be rejected. ( 6. ) WE have now to see whether there is any provision to regulate the exercise of this undisputed power to adjourn such a meeting. If there be any provision applicable, then that would regulate the exercise of power of adjournment, otherwise the action cannot be struck down on the ground of any contravention as alleged. ( 6. ) WE have now to see whether there is any provision to regulate the exercise of this undisputed power to adjourn such a meeting. If there be any provision applicable, then that would regulate the exercise of power of adjournment, otherwise the action cannot be struck down on the ground of any contravention as alleged. It is in this connection that the alternative argument of shri Garg has to be considered. ( 7. ) SUB section (3) of section 24 provides that a meeting for the purpose of this section shall be held in the manner prescribed. The 1964 Rules provide in rule 4 for a meeting to be convened for this purpose and the Secretary is required to specify the time and place of the meeting. This rule further requires seven clear days notice to be given to every Panch before the meeting. There is nothing in section 24 or the relevant Rules to provide for a case like the present wiiere the meeting could not be held at the time specified in accordance with rule 4 due to absence of all Panchas on account of which it had to be adjourned. Section24 and the corresponding rules are silent on the point of adjournment of the meeting so convened. In view of the express content of rule 4 of the 1964 Rules, it cannot be doubted that the time of the meeting is required to be expressly stated in the notice given under rule 4 to every Panch. Such a notice is required to be given seven clear days before the meeting. Thereafter the Rules are silent and make no provision to regulate an adjournment which may become necessary for several reasons including want of quorum as in the present case. It would be reasonable to hold that the provision of sub-section (4) of section 30 which provides for adjournment of a meeting applies to such a meeting also the same being not inconsistent in any manner with section 24 or the corresponding rales. To hold otherwise, would lead to the curious result that there would be no provision to govern the adjournment of a meeting required to be held under section 24 of the Act where the same cannot be held at the specified time for any reason, whatsoever even though provision is made to regulate adjournment of ordinary meetings in sub-section (4) of section 30. The further inevitable consequence would be that the power to adjourn a meeting convened for the purp iscs of section 24 of the Act being u ndoubted for the reasons already given, the same would be untramelled even though such a meeting is hound to be an important one. Since construction of the relevant provisions do not lead us to that result, we are unable to attribute such an intention to the legislature which can lead to abuse of power. There is nothing in sub-section (4) of section 30 or the heading of the section to suggest that such a meeting cannot be included within its ambit We are, therefore, of the opinion that sub section (1) of section 30 applies to govern the adjournment of a meeting converifd for the purposes of section 24 of the Act, when it has to be adjourned for want of quorum. ( 8. ) FOR the meeting convened on 8-5-1971, at 11 a. m. the requisite notice in accordance with rule 4 was admittedly given. It is equally clear that the meeting at which the resolution was actually passed was not held at the time specified in the notice under rule 4 but an adjourned meeting was held later the same day. Thus, in our opinion, the meeting which was convened for 8-5-1971 at 11 a. m. having been adjourned for want of quorum, the adjourned meeting could not be held later the same day and the meeting should have been fixed for some time on the following day or some future date : but not earlier as required by vib-section (4) of section 30. The resolution \va? passed in an adjourned meeting which was not fixed in accordance with sub section (4)of section 30 of the Act. This being, so, the resolution passed therein was invalid, the adjourned meeting not being held in the manner provided by law. ( 9. ) THE result is that the resolution passed in the adjourned meeting dated 8-5-1971 as contained in Annexure E to the petition is invalid and is hereby quashed. ( 10. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 100/- if certified. The outstanding amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.