Judgment :- The petitioner is the Vice-Chairman of Tiruneermalai Town Panchayat. A no-confidence motion was moved against him by the Chairman and nine members of the said panchayat through their representation dated 28.5.99. In the said representation, certain allegatioas were made against the petitioner herein in respect of abuse of his power as the Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat. Pursuant to the said representation, the second respondent herein in his proceedings dated 31.5.99 has called for the meeting of the panchayat at 11.00 A.M. on 24.6.99 to consider the no confidence motion. By another proceedings dated 23.6.99 the second respondent postponed the meeting due to administrative reasons. Again by his proceedings dated 6.7.99 the second respondent called for the meeting of the Panchayat at 11.00 A.M. on 20.7.99. However, that meeting was also postponed. Subsequently by proceedings dated 28.7.99 the second respondent convened the meeting of the Panchayat at 11.03 A.M. on 9.8.99. Challenging the validity of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 9.8.99, calling for the meeting of the Panchayat, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The only ground urged by Mr. K. Chandru, the learned senior counsel is that Section 40-A(6) of the Tama Nadu District Municipalities Act contemplates the adjournment of the meeting only for two occasions as specified under sub-clauses (4) and (5) of the said section. Since the Panchayat meeting to consider the no-confidence motion has already been adjourned twice, the notice lapses and the second respondent has no jurisdiction to call for the meeting on the third occasion. 3. This contention of the learned senior counsel is countered by the Special Government Pleader Mr. K.R. Thanuzhmani stating that by order dated 22.7.99 in W.P.12451 of 1999 this Court has directed the second respondent to convene the meeting within two months from date of the said order and the meeting is being convened as per the directions of this Court. Further the meeting has been adjourned on 20.7.99 for the reason specified under sub-clause (5) of Section 40-A of the said Act and sub-clauses (4) an d (5) refer only one cause for the postponement of the meeting and there is no restriction that the meeting cannot be adjourned more than twice. Further the word ‘shall’ used in sub-clause (6) of Section 40-A has to be construed as ‘may’ since no consequential result had been specified. Further the word ‘shall’ used in sub-clause (6) of Section 40-A has to be construed as ‘may’ since no consequential result had been specified. Hence the impugned notice calling for the meeting is quite valid. Otherwise the purpose of the meeting itself is lost and a person against whom certain allegations have been made with regard to the mal administration or abuse of his powers of the office will continue in the office indefinitely. 4. I carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. In view of the restricted contention made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it is but necessary to look into the necessary provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. Section 40-A subsections (1) to (6) are as follows: “40-A. Motion of no confidence in Vice-Chairman – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, a motion expressing want of confidence in the Vice-chairman may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down herein. (2) Written notice of intention to make the motion, in such form as may be fixed by the State (government, signed by such number of councillors as shall constitute not less than one-half of the sanctioned strength of the council, together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be made, shall be delivered by any two of the councillors, signing the notice in person together, to the Regional Inspector of Municipalities. (3) The Regional Inspector of Municipalities shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion, to be held at the municipal office, at a time appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under Sub-section (2) was delivered to him. He shall give to the councillors notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting and of the time appointed therefore. (4) The Regional Inspector of Municipalities shall preside at the meeting convened under this section, and no other person shall preside thereat. If within half an hour after the time appointed for the meeting the Regional Inspector of Municipalities is riot present to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to a time to be appointed and notified to the councillors by the Regional Inspector of Municipalities under Sub-section (5). If within half an hour after the time appointed for the meeting the Regional Inspector of Municipalities is riot present to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to a time to be appointed and notified to the councillors by the Regional Inspector of Municipalities under Sub-section (5). (5) If the Regional Inspector of Municipalities is unable to preside at the meeting, he may, after recording his reasons in writing, adjourn the meeting to such other time as he may appoint. The date so appointed shall not be later than thirty days from the date appointed for the meeting under sub-section (3). Notice of not less than seven dear days shall be given to the councillors of the time appointed for the adjourned meeting. (6) Save as provided in sub-section (4) and (5) a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under this Section, shall not for any reason be adjourned “ Sub-section (2) of Section 40-A requires that not less than one half of the sanctioned strength of the Council shall make a representation expressing the no-confidence. Sub-section (3) of the said section contemplates the convening of the meeting by the Regional Inspector of Municipalities at a time appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under subsection (2) was delivered to him. Hence within thirty days on receipt of the representation regarding the no-confidence, the meeting has to be called for about which the Councillors must be given the notice of not less than 15 days of such meeting. Coming to sub-section (4) of Section 40-A, this provision enables the Regional Inspector to adjourn the meeting if he could not be present and preside over the meeting. In such case, the meeting shall stand adjourned to a time to be appointed and notified to the Councillors as required under sub-section (5). Sub-section (5) contemplates that the meeting should be called for within thirty days from the date of adjournment, the date for which the meeting was previously fixed under sub-section (3). The Councillors should be given seven clear days notice about the adjourned meeting. Sub-section (6) makes it clear that the meeting convened for the purpose of considering the no-confidence motion shall not be adjourned for any reason except as provided in sub-sections (4) and (5). 5. The Councillors should be given seven clear days notice about the adjourned meeting. Sub-section (6) makes it clear that the meeting convened for the purpose of considering the no-confidence motion shall not be adjourned for any reason except as provided in sub-sections (4) and (5). 5. Sub-section (3) of Section 40-A of the said Act enables the Inspector to call for the meeting of no-confidence within 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation. Sub-section (4) enables the Inspector to adjourn the meeting. Sub-section (5) prescribes that the adjourned meeting should be convened within thirty days from the adjourned date. Sub-section (6) prohibits any further adjournment except the adjournment mentioned in sub-section (4) and (5) and this is clear from the wordings of sub-section (6) which is as follows: “Save as provided in sub-section (4) and (5) a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under this section, shall not for any reason be adjourned”. A careful reading of sub-section (6) bars any adjournment other than the two specified in sub-sections (4) and (5). Hence I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and accept the same. 5.A. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that ‘shall’ must be construed as ‘may’ and it is not a mandatory one, cannot be countenanced. The word ‘shall’ in sub-section (3) had been construed as mandatory by this Court in the judgment reported in Ethiraja Mudaliar v. Rev. Divisional Officer, Chingleput (1962 I M.LJ. 388). In the above case the learned Judge had an occasion to deal with the question as to whether the Inspector has got an option for nott to call for the meeting. On construction of the section, this Court held that since the section reads that the Inspector shall convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion, the Inspector has no option to exercise except to call for the meeting. 6. Similarly sub-section (4) envisages that the meeting shall be presided over by the Regional Inspector and no other person shall preside thereat. So the Inspector alone can preside over the no-confidence meeting and no other person can preside over the meeting. 6. Similarly sub-section (4) envisages that the meeting shall be presided over by the Regional Inspector and no other person shall preside thereat. So the Inspector alone can preside over the no-confidence meeting and no other person can preside over the meeting. When in a provision the word ‘shall’ is used with a definite intention that it should be mandatory, the word ‘shall’ in other sub-sections of the same section must be construed in the same manner and not otherwise. As already the meeting had been adjourned twice, now the impugned notice calling for the meting for consideration of the no-confidence against the petitioner for the third time cannot be sustained, since the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act. 7. Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed. 8. It is made clear that if the Assistant Director of the Panchayats finds that there is some basis in the representation of the Councillors, it is open to him to call for a meeting afresh suo-moto , if law permits.