A. M. AHMADI, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is the original petitioner He was elected as a member of the Bayad Taluka Panchayat (District Sabarkantha) on a Janata Party ticket at the election held sometime in January 1987 He was subsequently elected as the President of the Taluka Panchayat on February 24 1987 The respondent No. 4 was also elected as a member of the said Panchayat on a Congress (1) ticket. It appears that respondent No. 4 moved a notice of no confidence against the petitioner on 16/05/1988 As required by Sec. 60 (5) (a) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) the petitioner called a meeting of the Panchayat on 7/06/1988 It is the case of the petitioner that at the said meeting the discussion on the no confidence motion was held but thereafter the meeting was adjourned to 15/06/1988 It seems that after the meeting was so adjourned the Secretary of the Taluka Panchayat submitted a report to the District Development Officer (respondent No. 2) who purporting to act under the provisions of Sec. 294 (4) of the Act passed an order dated 13/06/1988 staying the further proceedings on the no confidence motion. As a result of this order the no confidence motion could not be taken up for discussion at the adjourned meeting of 15/06/1988 The matter was taken up in revision by the State Government in exercise of power under Sec. 306 of the Act. The Additional Development Commissioner (respondent No. 1) passed an order Annexure A dated 17/06/1988 setting aside the order passed by the District Development Officer and directed the District Development Officer to fix the date for next meeting. The next meeting was fixed on 25/06/1988 Before that meeting could be held the petitioner filed a suit and obtained an and interim injunction from the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Revision) Himatnagar on 21/06/1988 Against that order an appeal was preferred and during the pendency of the appeal the suit itself was withdrawn with the result that the appeal was rendered infructuous. The appellate Court therefore dismissed the appeal as the time of the meeting had lapsed but directed the District Development Officer to fix the next date for the meeting. Against this order a Civil Revision Application was preferred in this Court but we are told by Counsel that it has been rejected. The appellate Court therefore dismissed the appeal as the time of the meeting had lapsed but directed the District Development Officer to fix the next date for the meeting. Against this order a Civil Revision Application was preferred in this Court but we are told by Counsel that it has been rejected. One further suit was filed against the order of the Additional Development Commissioner in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narol and an ad interim injunction was sought but to restrain the concerned authorities from calling the meeting but no ex parte ad interim injunction was granted whereupon the suit was ultimately withdrawn It is for this reason that the learned single Judge in his impugned order has mentioned that two suits filed earlier have since been withdrawn. Thereafter the meeting was convened on 13/07/1958 that is to-day. On 11/07/1988 the petition which has given rise to this appeal was preferred. It was disposed of by the learned single Judge on the next days that is 12/07/1988 by a speaking order. The learned single Judge took the view that there was no merit in the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the maximum upper limit for calling the no confidence meeting was thirty days and since no decision was taken within the said period of thirty days the motion for no confidence had lapsed and could not be considered at any subsequent meeting. In this view that he took he summarily rejected the petition. It is against that order of the learned single Judge that the present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred. ( 2 ) UNDER Sec. 60 (5) of the Act a meeting of the Panchayat for dealing with 8 motion of no confidence has to be called within a period of fifteen days from the date on which a notice of such motion is received by the Panchayat. There is no dispute that on receipt of the notice in the form prescribed by Rule 17 of the Rules formed under the Act the President of the Taluka Panchayat had called a meeting on 7/06/1988 Therefore the requirement of sub-sec. (5) (a) of Sec. 60 v/as duly complied with by the petitioner. After the meeting was called on 7/06/1988 it was adjourned to 15/06/1988 Rule 15 of the Rules provides for adjournment of the meeting. (5) (a) of Sec. 60 v/as duly complied with by the petitioner. After the meeting was called on 7/06/1988 it was adjourned to 15/06/1988 Rule 15 of the Rules provides for adjournment of the meeting. It posits that a meeting may with the consent of the majority of the members present be adjourned from time to time. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that once the discussion on the no confidence motion has commenced the meeting cannot be adjourned. Such a contention cannot be entertained on the plain language of Rule 15. Reference was made to Rule 36 which inter alia provides that a resolution to adjourn the meeting or to postpone the consideration of a question shall take precedence over any other resolution before the meeting. This Rule also does not; support the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It only states that if a proposal to adjourn the meeting is moved it must get precedence over any other resolution before the meeting. It goes to show that once there in a resolution for adjournment of the meeting that resolution must be considered first before any other resolution is considered at the meeting. Therefore even if during the course of the discussion a resolution for adjournment is moved that resolution muse get precedence and if it is carried AS in the present case the meeting has to be adjourned. Therefore we see no merit in the submission that once a discussion on the no confidence motion commences the meeting cannot be adjourned. ( 3 ) RELIANCE was next placed on Rule 18 which states that a motion of which a notice has been given under sub-rule (1) of Rule 17 shall be considered by the Panchayat at the next ordinary meeting if it is to be held not earlier than the expiry of seven days and not later than the expiry of thirty days after the date of receipt of the notice by the Secretary. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 next provides that if an ordinary meeting of the Panchayat is not due at any time during the period specified in sub-rule (1) a special meeting of the Panchayat shall be convened during that period for considering the motion. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 next provides that if an ordinary meeting of the Panchayat is not due at any time during the period specified in sub-rule (1) a special meeting of the Panchayat shall be convened during that period for considering the motion. On the language of this rule Counsel submitted that the motion of no confidence has to be considered at a meeting to be held before the expiry of thirty days after the receipt of the motion by the Secretary of the Panchayat. He submitted that in the present case the notice was received on 16/05/1988 and therefore it ought to have been considered within a period of thirty days that is before 15/06/1988 and if the same has not been considered within the said period it must be taken as lapsed. We do not see any merit in this contention also. It must be remembered that under sub-sec. (5) (a) of Sec. 60 a meeting of the Panchayat for dealing with a motion of no confidence has to be called within a period of fifteen days from the date on which of notice of such motion is received by the Panchayat. Rule 18 however states that if the next ordinary meeting of the the Panchayat is to be held not earlier than the expiry of seven days and not later than the expiry of thirty days after the date of receipt of the notice the motion may be considered at such an ordinary meeting; but sub-rule (2) of that rule says that if the ordinary meeting is not due at any time during the aforesaid period a special meeting of the Panchayat shall be convened during that period for considering the motion. This rule merely states that if the ordinary meeting is to be held not earlier than seven days and not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice of no confidence it would not be necessary to call A special meeting but otherwise a special meeting should be convened for considering the motion. This rule nowhere states that if the motion of no confidence is not considered within thirty days it shall lapse. Under sub-sec. This rule nowhere states that if the motion of no confidence is not considered within thirty days it shall lapse. Under sub-sec. (5) (a) of Sec. 60 a meeting of the Panchayat for dealing with a motion of no confidence has to be called within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the motion. Rule 18 merely provides that if the next ordinary meeting is scheduled within thirty days of the receipt of the notice but not earlier than seven days the no confidence motion may be considered at such ordinary meeting otherwise a special meeting shall be convened during the said period. Section 60 (5) (a) lays down the outer limit for calling a meeting whereas Rule 18 lays down the outer limit for `convening the meeting. The rule does not provide that such meeting will not be adjourned and if the business of consideration of the no confidence motion is not completed within the said period the motion will lapse altogether. We are therefore disinclined to accept this submission. The learned single Judge also did not consider the submission in this behalf as one deserving consideration. ( 4 ) IN view of the above we see no merit in this appeal and summarily dismiss the same. No order on the Civil Application. Appeal dismissed. .