Judgment :- Petitioners are the President and Vice President of the third respondent Kadampanad Panchayat. Written notice of a no-confidence motion against them was delivered on 5-2-1992 under S.54(2) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. A meeting was convened to be held on 10-3-1992 for consideration of the motion. Notice was given accordingly. But that day happened to be declared a holiday by the Kerala Government to celebrate the success of the State Football team in the Santhosh Trophy Football Tournament. The District Panchayat Officer thereupon adjourned the meeting by his proceedings Ext.P2 relying on the proviso to rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayats (Proceedings of Panchayat Meetings and Committees) Rules, 1962. Notice was thereafter issued for holding a fresh meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion on 2-4-1992. Petitioners have come forward with this original petition with the plea that a fresh meeting to consider the no confidence motion could not be held on 2-4-1992. 2. Section 54 of the Kerala Panchayats Act deals with motions of no confidence against the President or Vice President of a Panchayat. Petitioners' case is that under the provisions of S.54 a meeting for the purpose of considering a motion of no confidence shall not be adjourned for any reason. But having adjourned it, it was not possible to convene another meeting within six months because of the alleged bar created by subsection (14) of S.54 Petitioners case is that though the adjournment of the meeting on 10-3-1992 was illegal and without any reason, a fresh meeting to consider the no confidence motion within six months therefrom, on 2-4-1992, is plainly barred by S.54(14). 3. There is a further contention raised that even the meeting proposed to be held on 10-3-1992 was bad, being contrary to the provisions of sub-section (3) of S.54 which requires such a meeting to be held within a period of thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) of S.54 was delivered to the authorised officer. The notice in this case was delivered on 5-2-1992 whereas the meeting was proposed to be held only on 10-3-1992 beyond the period of thirty days prescribed by sub-section (3) of S.54. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any substance in either of these contentions. For the purpose of reference, I shall extract sub-sections (3), (5) and (14) of S.54. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any substance in either of these contentions. For the purpose of reference, I shall extract sub-sections (3), (5) and (14) of S.54. "(3) Any officer of the Government not below the rank of District Panchayat Officer, horised by the Deputy Director in this behalf, shall convene a meeting of the Panchayat for the consideration of the motion, to be held at the office of the Panchayat at a time appointed by the aforesaid officer, which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the motion under sub-section (2) was delivered to the Deputy Director. The aforesaid officer shall give to the member's notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting and of the time appointed therefor." "(5) A meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under this section shall not, for any reason, be adjourned." "(14) If no meeting could be held for want of the quorum required under sub-section (7) or if the motion is not carried by such a majority as required under sub-section (13) no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence on the same President or Vice-President shall be received until after the expiry of six months from the date of the meeting." 5. There is no dispute that a meeting convened for consideration of a no-confidence motion shall not be adjourned for any reason whatsoever. This is a provision intended to safeguard the interests of the movers of the resolution to see that the no-confidence motion is not adjourned flippantly or for extraneous reasons. That is why an absolute bsr is imposed on the adjournment of such a motion. But that does not mean that if the meeting is adjourned unjustifiably or illegally, an immunity is conferred on the President or the Vice President, by barring a fresh meeting for another six months from that date. In fact it will be doing violence to the language of S.54(14) to read such a bar therein. Petitioner is really misreading it. What the sub section provides is only that if the motion is not carried by a majority as prescribed in sub-section (13) or where the meeting cannot beheld for want of quorum, any subsequent motion of no confidence shall not be taken up for consideration, for a period of six months. Petitioner is really misreading it. What the sub section provides is only that if the motion is not carried by a majority as prescribed in sub-section (13) or where the meeting cannot beheld for want of quorum, any subsequent motion of no confidence shall not be taken up for consideration, for a period of six months. An illegal adjournment is not covered by it. There is therefore no substance in the contention of the petitioners that the no confidence motion cannot be considered for another six months. 6. The other contention of the petitioners is also equally untenable. It is true that S.54 (3) prescribes a limit of 30 days within which a meeting should be held. But then this provision is in tended for the benefit of the movers of the resolution. It could not be that if the authorised officer defaults in convening a meeting for extraneous reasons, the movers who are otherwise helpless, are imperilled with their resolution lapsing. Such a contingency cannot be postulated, nor could it have been intended by the legislature. This contention must also therefore fail. There is no merit in the original petition. It is accordingly dismissed.