JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is a Block Pramukh. Notice of intention to move a motion of non-confidence against him was given to the Collector. The Collector issued notice as required under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 4 the Act'). On 26-9-1987, the meeting could not be held because of the absence of the Presiding Officer. Thereupon, the Collector fixed 20th October, 1987, for holding the meeting. The date was the adjourned date under sub-section (4-B) of Section 15 of the Act. Once again the meeting could not be held. Thereafter the Collector has now fixed 4th November, 1987, by means of a notice dated 21-10-1987, for the convening of the meeting. 2. In this writ petition, the prayer is that the notice of the Collector dated 21-10-1987, for convening a meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence on 4-11-1987 be quashed and a writ be issued commanding the respondents not to hold the meeting on the said date. We have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan at length in support of this petition. He has advanced a very attractive argument. We are, however, unable to accept it. Notice of this writ petition has not yet been issued and we do not know the version on facts of the other side. However, we are deciding the matter as only a pure question of law arises. 3. The argument of Sri B. D. Mandhyan is that under section 15 of the Act a meeting expressing want of confidence in Pramukh is to be held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 15 of the Act. 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 provides that a notice of intention to make the motion shall be in writing, signed by atleast half of the total number of members of the Kshettra Samiti. Sub-section (3) provides that the Collector shall convene a meeting which will not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered to the Collector. 5. Sub-section (4-A) provides for an automatic adjournment of the convening of the meeting if the Presiding Officer is not present to preside at the meeting. 6. Thereafter comes sub-section (4-B) which runs as follows :- "(4-B). 5. Sub-section (4-A) provides for an automatic adjournment of the convening of the meeting if the Presiding Officer is not present to preside at the meeting. 6. Thereafter comes sub-section (4-B) which runs as follows :- "(4-B). If the officer mentioned in sub-section (4) is unable to preside at the meeting, he may, after recording his reasons, adjourn the meeting to such other date and time as he may appoint, but not later than 25 days from the date appointed for the meeting under sub-section (3). He shall without delay inform the Collector in writing of the adjournment of the meeting. The Collector shall give to the members atleast ten day's notice of the next meeting in the manner prescribed under sub-section (3). " In the instant case, what had happened, a meeting was convened by the Collector but could not be held as the Presiding Officer was not present. Another date was fixed and again the meeting could not be held. Sri B. D. Mandhyan urges that no further date of convening a meeting can be fixed and the motion of no-confidence is dead for all purposes as it cannot be considered. For this argument he calls in aid sub-section (5) of the Act, which provides : " Save as provided in sub-sections (4-A) and (4-B), a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under this section shall not be adjourned. 7. The intention of the legislature is clearly that a motion of no-confidence should be considered as early as possible, but it does not mean that an adjourned meeting cannot be adjourned further. There are no words in section 15 saying expressly that an adjourned meeting cannot be further adjourned. There may be many circumstances which may render adjournment of an adjourned meeting necessary. We cannot read into section 15 any limitation on the power of the convening authority or the Presiding Officer to adjourn an adjourned meeting. Of course, when a meeting is adjourned, the Collector has to give atleast ten days notice of the next meeting in the manner prescribed under sub-section (3) of the Act. Such a notice has, infact, been given in the instant case. 8. We are, therefore, not satisfied that there is any merit in this case. The petition is according dismissed. Petition dismissed.