ORDER 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the resolution dated 12.8.1996 passed against the petitioner removing him from the office of Sarpanch on carrying of no-confidence motion. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that some no-confidence motion application for taking no-confidence motion was submitted against the petitioner of which cognizance was taken by the competent authority and a meeting was directed to be held on 26.7.96. On 26.7.96, the meeting could not be held, therefore, according to the petitioner, the motion stood rejected and no meeting could be held for considering the said motion on 12.8.1996. According to the petitioner, the Presiding Officer had no power to adjourn the meeting, therefore, it must be held that adjournment of the meeting dated 26.7.96 would mean that the motion of no-confidence failed. 3. On the other hand, Shri Vijay Shukla learned Government Advocate submits that because of death of some Naib Tahsildar, the Presiding Officer could not attend the meeting or convene the same, therefore, it was required to be adjourned. He submits that the requirement of the law that the meeting must be held within 15 days is directory and would not make the meeting void ab initio, if it is held after 15 days of the application for 'no-confidence motion.' 4. Section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 provides the procedure in which no-confidence motion is to be moved and is required to be discussed. Sub-section (3) of section 21 provides that a no-confidence motion shall not lie against Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch within the period of one year from the date on which the Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch enter their respective office six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch, as the case may be, expires; one year from the date on which previous motion of no-confidence was rejected. The petitioner submits that because of adjournment of meeting, the motion stood automatically rejected and as such neither fresh motion could be moved nor the earlier 'no-confidence motion' which suffered deemed rejection could be put to vote. The argument is misconceived. A no-confidence motion shall not lie within a period of one year from the date on which the previous no-confidence motion was rejected, would only mean that the motion was put to test. The argument is misconceived. A no-confidence motion shall not lie within a period of one year from the date on which the previous no-confidence motion was rejected, would only mean that the motion was put to test. It would be incorrect to say that in a situation like the present, the motion cannot be put to vote. The word 'rejection' would clearly mean, as read in conjunction with sub-section (1) of section 21, that if on voting it is not passed by at least 3/4th Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than two-third of the total number of Panch as constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being. If3/4th of the Panchas present and voting and at least two-third of the Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat do not support the motion, then only it stands rejected, not otherwise. In the instant case, the motion was not put to vote as the Presiding Officer was not available to convene the meeting the consideration was to be adjourned. In the matter of Hargovind Johari v. Zila Panchayat, Morena (1996 JLJ 23]), this Court observed that the meeting summoned for expressing no-confidence motion cannot be adjourned for want of quorum as the quorum is not prescribed. The presiding officer has only to preside over the meeting but has no power to adjourn it. The observations made in the judgment are in consonance with the provisions of sub-section (1). The Jaw does not provide for quorum. The law itself provides for the number of Panchas who are required to carry the motion. If the Panchas present do not constitute two-third of the Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat unanimously pass the motion, the motion would be invalid, in view of sub-section (1) of section 21. Under these circumstances, the said judgment cannot be taken in assistance. In the instant case, the meeting was required to be adjourned as the Presiding Officer was not available. If the Presiding Officer was not available, no meeting could be held. If no meeting could be held, the motion could not be put to vote. If motion was not put to vote, neither it was discussed nor considered nor after consideration it was rejected. Benefit under section 21 (3) (iii) would not be available to the petitioner. The meeting held on 12.8.96 was absolutely legal. 5. If no meeting could be held, the motion could not be put to vote. If motion was not put to vote, neither it was discussed nor considered nor after consideration it was rejected. Benefit under section 21 (3) (iii) would not be available to the petitioner. The meeting held on 12.8.96 was absolutely legal. 5. Placing reliance upon rule 3 of the Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994, it was contended that the meeting cannot be convened beyond the period of more than 15 days from the date of receipt of notice of no-confidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the meeting held on 12.8.96 was beyond the period of 15 days it was contrary to rule 3. Rule 3 considered in its true spirit would only mean that if no-confidence motion is moved, it would ordinarily be decided, after vote, within a period of 15 days so that no scope for horse trading is left. If the meeting is held beyond 15 days, it would not affect its validity. This Court in the matter of Smt. Dhumadandhin v. State of M.P. [1997 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 49] has already held that if the meeting is held beyond 15 days from the date of receipt of the motion of no-confidence notice, it would not be void. Following the observations made by this Court in the matter of Dhumadandhin (supra), I am also of the opinion that conduction of the meeting beyond 15 days would not make the meeting void. 6. Considered from any angle, I do not find any force in this petition. It deserves to and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.