( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the no confidence motion passed against him on 13-110-1978 (Ext. D ). ( 2 ) SOME time in September, 1978 the Petitioner and one Shri Anna Saheb veerappa Patil were elected as Chairman and Vice Chairman of Shegunshi Village panchayat of Athni Taluk, District Bel gaum (hereinafter referred to as 'the panchayat' ). On 3-10-1978, certain members of the Panchayat gave a notice of no confidence motion against the petitioner and the Vice Chairman of the Panchayat. As the petitioner did not convene a meeting within the permitted time, the Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Board, Athni, convened a meeting on 13-11-1978 to consider the notice of no confidence motion given by the members of the Panchayat against the petitioner and Vice Chairman. On that day, the petitioner, the Vice Chairman and some other members of the Panchayat were absent. But, it appears that on that day the members of the Panchayat that were present did not elect any one of them to preside over the meeting and requested the Chief Executive Officer to preside over the meeting. Accepting the request of the members of the Panchayat, the Chief Executive Officer presided over the meeting held on that day and the no confidence motion was passed against'the petitioner and the Vice Chairman with the requisite majority. The Vice Chairman of the Panchayat has not challenged the no confidence motion passed against him and therefore my order in this writ petition will only govern the case of the petitioner. ( 3 ) SHRI N. A. Mandagi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that under the No Confidence Motion against the Chairman or Vice Chairman of Panchayat (Procedure) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed under the provisions of the Karnataka Village, Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it was not open to the Chief Executive officer to preside over the meeting and therefore the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner was invalid. Shri K. S. Savanur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, refuted the contention of Shri Mandagi and contended that in the circumstances the action of the Chief Executive Officer in presiding over the meeting was not illegal. 3. Shri K. S. Savanur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, refuted the contention of Shri Mandagi and contended that in the circumstances the action of the Chief Executive Officer in presiding over the meeting was not illegal. 3. In the petition, the petitioner has specifically averred that the meeting held on 13-11-1978 was presided over by the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk board which allegation is not denied by respondent No 3, in his objection statement. On this ground itself, the plea of the petitioner has to be accepted. Secondly in their objection statement filed before the Assistant Commissioner, majority of the members of the Panchayat that passed the no confidence motion against the petitioner and the Vice Chairman have stated that the meeting was presided over by the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Boad. In these circumstances, I should proceed to examine the case of the petitioner accepting his plea that the meeting was presided over by the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk board. ( 4 ) RULE 6 of the Rules provides as to who should preside over a meeting convered for considering the no confidence motion against the Chairman, Vice chairman or both. According to that Rule, when a no confidence motion is tabled against a Chairman, the Vice Chairman of the Panchayat has to preside over the meeting. When a no confidence motion is tabled against a Vice Chairman, the Chairman of the Panchayati has to preside over the meeting. But when a no confidence motion is tabled against both the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Panchayat the said Rule provides that the member of the Panchayat should elect any one of them to preside over the said meeting and consider the no confidence motion tabled against the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the panchayat. R. 6 is a complete code in itself and provides for all the contingencies. Rule 6 or any other provision of the Act does not authorise the Chief Executive officer or any other functionary to preside over a meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Panchayat. Rule 6 also provides that a member of the Panchayat elected at the meeting shall preside. (Underlining italics is mine ). Rule 6 also provides that a member of the Panchayat elected at the meeting shall preside. (Underlining italics is mine ). Unless the context otherwise requires whenever the word 'shall' is used in any enactment or a Rule, the intendment of such an enactment or Rule is mandatory. By construing that a member of the Panchayat alone should perside over the meeting, the smooth functioning of the Panchayat and the consideration of a no confidence motion by the members of the panchayat is not defeated. For the above reasons I am|of the opinion that Rule 6 is mandatory and therefore the meeting presided over by the Chief Executive officer was illegal. I, therefore, quash the no confidence motion passed by the panchayat on 13-11-1978 as against the petitioner only. ( 5 ) AS the petitioner who was functioning as the Chairman of the Panchayat had not convened a meeting within the time permitted by the Act, the chief Executive Officer was therefore justified in convening the meeting though his action in presiding over the meeting was illegal. In these circumstances, i direct the Chief Executive Officer-respondent No. 2 to convene a fresh special meeting in accordance with Section 36 of the Act and thus enable the members of the Panchayat to consider the no confidence motion tabled against the petitioner. ( 6 ) IN order to enable the Chief Executive Officer to take further necessary steps as directed in this order, I direct the office to communicate a copy of this order to respondent No. 2 and also hand over a copy to Shri G. R. Nataraj, learned High Court Government Pleader, within 7 days from this day. ( 7 ) RULE made absolute. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .