P. K. SHYAMSUNDAR, J. ( 1 ) A very piquant question which is fairly interesting arises for consideration in this writ petition. The question is when a meeting scheduled to be held on a particular date at a particular hour could neither be commenced nor held at that time for the simple reason that the person who had convened the meeting and had necessarily to preside over that meeting was physically not present in the meeting having been summoned to attend a Court proceedings earlier which proceeding later resulted in that very person being injuncted from holding the meeting scheduled on that day. ( 2 ) THE petitioner says the remiss in the holding of the meeting by the person concerned on the date and at the time specified earlier must now enure to his benefit so that he may have a further innings to play out as a Pradhan of the Mandal Panchayat whose position was seriously threatened when a no confidence motion tabled by a large number of his cohorts had to be discussed in the meeting referred to hereinbefore. ( 3 ) THE facts required to be stated to complete the narrative are as follows : The Mandal Panchayat at Ankanahalli nestling somewhere in T. Narasipur taluk of Mysore District was presided over by the petitioner as its Pradhan. The pradhan suddenly found the ground beneath him being pulled and his tenure of office suffering the prospect of being cut-short when for some reason or the other a large number of irate members of the panchayat tabled a no confidence motion against him before the Asst. Commissioner, Mysore Division, Mysore and asked the asst. Commissioner to fix a meeting of the Mandal Panchayat to enable them to move the said no confidence motion against the petitioner. That it is the Asst. Commissioner who has the authority to take notice of the no confidence motion, receive it, when tendered and to put the machinery in action are all matters not in dispute. The Asst. Commissioner as expected of him after receipt of the no confidence motion a copy of'which is produced at Annexure-A, issued a meeting notice dated 11th of July, 1991 under Annexure-B scheduling a meeting of the members of the panchayat to be held on the 7th of August, 1991 at 11-30 a. m. in the office of the mandal Panchayat in question. If everything had proceeded according to plan the meeting on the 7th of August, 1991 would have been held as convened by the Asst. Commissioner under the meeting notice at Annexure-B, with the fate of the petitioner decided one way or the other. But curiously none of these things did take place by reason of a supervening reason arising out of a suit said to have been filed by some one in the Court of Munsiff, T. Narasipur in O. S. 243/1991. In the said suit a prayer for an ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining defendant No. 1 none other than the A. C. from holding the meeting under Annexure-B was made but the learned Judge having demurred against that request chose to issue emergent notice to defendant No. 1 by telegram which is rather curious. But, nonetheless, that telegram was received by the Asst. Commissioner who upon acquainting himself with the contents of the telegram summoning him to the Court of the Munsiff on the next day, hurried to the Court in answer to the summons. So on 7-8-1991 the Asst. Commissioner who was supposed to preside over the meeting under Annexure-B was before the Court of Munsiff, T. Narasipur and is borne out from the entry in the order-sheet of the case, produced herein as Annexure-R1. Apparently this order was passed at on the forenoon sitting of the Court. In this manner, after the first defendant, the Asst. Commissioner, after having presented himself before the court as directed, later rushed back to the place of meeting, told such of the members who were still present at the venue that the Court had stopped him from conducting the meeting and, therefore, he was adjourning it. All this is found at annexure-C indicating that the Asst. Commissioner had disclosed the factum of the court having restrained him from holding the meeting by means of an injunction, to the members who were present in the meeting hall of Mandal Panchayat at 12-45 p. m. He appears to have taken a roll-call of the members present and absent as (sic) from the record at Ex. C. It shows that only five out of the 25 panchayat members were present with 20 being absent. The declaration found at Annexure-C in which the Asst. C. It shows that only five out of the 25 panchayat members were present with 20 being absent. The declaration found at Annexure-C in which the Asst. Commissioner stated that the meeting was postponed to a further date as also the further notice issued by the Asst. Commissioner seeking to hold the adjourned meeting on the 15th of October, 1991 as per Annexure-D are challenged by the Pradhan who is still in office. ( 4 ) ON his behalf the submission made by counsel is that notice of a motion tabled by the Councillors under Annexure-A must be held to have reached a terminus (sic) the very moment the meeting scheduled by the Asst. Commissioner to consider that notice was one hour old during which time it could not be held for want of quorum. Reliance in this connection is placed on Clause 6 of Section 47. But before adverting to the aforesaid sub-clause, it would be useful to set out the whole of Section 47 since that would give an insight as to what happens in the meeting called to consider a noconfidence motion against a Pradhan of Mandal Panchayat. "47. Motion of no-confidence against Pradhana or Upa-Pradhana or Mandal panchayat :- (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Pradhana or upa-pradhana may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following sub-sections. (2) A written notice of intention to make the motion, in such form as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one half of the total number of members of the Mandal Panchayat, together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person by any two of the members signing the notice to the Deputy commissioner. (3) The Deputy Commissioner shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of a motion at the office of the Mandal panchayat on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-secti. on (2) was delivered to him. (3) The Deputy Commissioner shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of a motion at the office of the Mandal panchayat on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-secti. on (2) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed : provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, it shall be adjourned and the said officer shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay after giving to the members notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting. (4) The Deputy Commissioner shall preside at such meeting. The quorum for such meeting shall be two thirds of the total number of members of the mandal Panchayat. Explanation. In the determination of two thirds of total number of members under this section, any fraction arrived at shall be construed as one. (5) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under this section shall not for any reason be adjourned. (6) If within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting there is no quorum, the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under sub-section (2) shall lapse. (7) As soon as the meeting convened under the section commences, the deputy Commissioner shall read to the members of the Mandal Panchayat, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate. (8) The Deputy Commissioner shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon. (8) The Deputy Commissioner shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon. (9) If the motion is carried with the support of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Mandal Panchayat, the Pradhana or upa-Pradhana, as the case may be, shall forthwith cease to function as such and the Deputy Commissioner shall, as soon as may be, notify such cessation in the prescribed manner and arrange in the manner prescribed for the handing over of any documents, moneys or other properties of the Mandal Panchayat by the person removed: provided that no election to the office of Pradhana or Upa-Pradhana shall be held until after such notice removing the Pradhana or Upa-Pradhana, as the case may be, is published. "the scheme of the provision comprising as it does of about nine clauses and a proviso concerns itself with the procedure laid down by law required to be followed while moving a motion expressing want of confidence in a Pradhana or Upa-Prad- hana. Firstly, it requires a written notice to be delivered to the Asst. Commissioner in a particular manner. It also enjoins the motion itself be sponsored by 1/2 of the total number of members of the panchayat. Sub-section (3) refers to the action to be taken by the Asst. Commissioner on receipt of the notice "seeking the tabling of no confidence motion. Sub-section (4) deals with the quorum required for such a meeting while sub-section (5) lays down that a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a no confidence motion shall not be adjourned. Sub-section (6) stipulates that if there is no quorum within one hour after the meeting the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under sub-section (2) shall lapse. Sub-sections 7, 8 and 9 deal with the roll to be played by the Asst. Commissioner in the conduct of the meeting and after the passing of the no-confidence motion. ( 5 ) IT is not denied that if the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 47 became operative and was attracted to the facts of the case the action taken subsequently by the Asst. Commissioner in the conduct of the meeting and after the passing of the no-confidence motion. ( 5 ) IT is not denied that if the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 47 became operative and was attracted to the facts of the case the action taken subsequently by the Asst. Commissioner in calling a meeting under Annexure-D, treating it as an adjourned meeting, convened, after the disability to hold such a meeting had come to nought, the petitioner in that circumstance could not assail the legality of that notice. ( 6 ) I am to mention that after the proceedings before Court on 7th of August, 1991, the suit in O. S. 243/1991 came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 31-84991. The asst. Commissioner being in receipt of that information had, thereafter, scheduled the meeting under Annexure-D for considering the motion of no confidence. The position, therefore, is the earlier meeting scheduled under Annexure-B having been stopped by an order of the Court, it would then follow the step taken by the Asst. Commissioner to hold the adjourned meeting to consider the motion of no confidence under Annexure-D would be without any exception and certainly be tenable under the law. If on the other hand, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the meeting of the 7th August, 1991 can be construed as dissolved for want of quorum in the circumstances mentioned in Clause (6) of Section 47, then the petitioner is certainly right in contending that the no confidence motion tabled against him no longer survived for being taken up, considered and decided at the adjourned meeting. So, the controversy narrows down only to this, in that whether the meeting convened on 7th of August was a nonest (sic) Court order or did it stand dissolved for want of quorum in which event under sub-section (6) the notice of intention to move a no confidence motion would itself have lapsed and in that circumstance, as urged by the petitioner, to unseat him a denovo motion expressing want of confidence in him had to be moved and the entire process underlining the scheme for passing no confidence motion beginning with the tendering of the notice to the Asst. Commissioner, in the manner prescribed under Section 47 of the Act, had to be gone (sic) once again. It is for this the petitioner piously hopes for. Commissioner, in the manner prescribed under Section 47 of the Act, had to be gone (sic) once again. It is for this the petitioner piously hopes for. ( 7 ) AFTER giving my earnest consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as juxtaposed by the submissions of the learned Government pleader and counsel appearing for the other respondents, I find it difficult to accept the submission that the meeting scheduled to be held on 7th of August, 1991 to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner had been dissolved for want of quorum resulting in the (sic) notice of no confidence motion itself. ( 8 ) IT is not deniedby the petitioner that on the 7th of August, 1991 the Asst. Commissioner who had convened the meeting and who was required to preside over the meeting, put-in his appearance at the meeting venue only at 12. 45 p. m. So much be comes evident from the caption to Annexure-C. There is no gain-say in asserting or denying that the meeting could have been held only by the Asst. Commissioner and the meeting could have been presided only by him and by no one else. This is overwhelmingly apparent from the scheme of Section 47. There is nothing in that section which can possibly account for an argument that in the absence of the statutory authority who is authorised to convene and preside over the meeting, in this case the asst. Commissioner, somebody else could have done that job or somebody could have stood-in for the Asst. Commissioner and got on with the meeting. The position, therefore, was the Asst. Commissioner who had to do all these things himself being not present at the meeting venue on the date of the meeting it goes without saying that the meeting must be held to have commenced only at 12. 45 p. m. after the arrival of A. C. on 7-8-1991 although it was convened to be held at 11. 30 a. m. on that day. Merely because the members who were asked to be present at the meeting venue at 11. 30 a. m. , that by itself does not signal the starting of the meeting because the meeting had to commence with some one presiding over that meeting. 30 a. m. on that day. Merely because the members who were asked to be present at the meeting venue at 11. 30 a. m. , that by itself does not signal the starting of the meeting because the meeting had to commence with some one presiding over that meeting. There could be no meeting if the person who had to preside over it is himself not present at the venue. If he was not present at the time scheduled for the commencement of the meeting, then by no stretch of imagination can one say that there was in fact a meeting at 11. 30 a. m. on that day. The congregating of members while it is a necessary input for holding the meeting, but does not herald the commencement of the meeting. Only if the meeting had actually commenced or called to order, then the question would arise whether there was a quorum or not. But if the meeting itself had not commenced, the question of ascertaining the existence of a quorum does not arise. That is certainly begging the question,. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, if as a matter of fact the meeting had not commenced at all becauset he person who had to convene the meeting, hold and preside over it was himself not present, the question of setting at nought that meeting on grounds of lack of quorum within one hour of the time scheduled does not arise. If that be the end result and admittedly the Asst. Commissioner who had to hold the meeting having been earlier restrained by an injunction order of the Civil Court, the meeting could not have been held at all in which event the proviso to Section 47 referred to (supra) arises and operates, resulting thereby in the meeting being adjourned mandatorily. ( 10 ) MR. Subbiah, learned sr. counsel who appeared for the petitioner also urged that the Asst. Commissioner having convened a meeting at 11. 30 a. m. but (sic) not being present at the meeting venue, the members could not be expected to await his arrival at his own sweet time. He also urged that the Asst. Commissioner who had convened the meeting was duty bound to start the meeting at the scheduled hour and should not have gone to the Court pursuant to the summons issued to him. I agree that the Asst. He also urged that the Asst. Commissioner who had convened the meeting was duty bound to start the meeting at the scheduled hour and should not have gone to the Court pursuant to the summons issued to him. I agree that the Asst. Commissioner need not have gone in person in answer the court and might have instructed his counsel, the Government Pleader, to appear for him but for some reason he appears to have thought that he should report to the court in person. Learned Government Pleader now tells me that the Asst. Commissioner had no time to instruct the local Government Pleader and therefore he had thought it fit to appear before the Court himself. This aspect is besides the point for the simple reason that the meeting scheduled had in fact been stopped by the Court. By injustifying the Asst. Commissioner. To the Asst. Commissioner it was probably a question of making a choice between conducting the meeting and attending the court. He seems to have thought that the Court should get precedence over the meeting. Whether he faltered in the choice he made is an aspect on which I do not wish to extoll further. Suffice it to point out this is not a case in which the question of want of quorum could be made a ground to dislodge the no confidence motion itself paving the way to a demand that the entire process be gone through once again if the members were still keen on it. This clearly is a case where the meeting scheduled to consider the no confidence motion moved against the petitioner was not held at all because of the Court's order and if that be so, there is no question of the meeting being bombed for want of quorum. The no confidence motion, therefore, survived and had to be necessarily considered at the adjourned meeting under Annexure-D because the injunction was granted by the Court had resulted in the said motion of no confidence, not being considered at the meeting scheduled on 17th August, 1991 as intended to. ( 11 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, this writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. --- *** --- .