Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 400 (GAU)

Dipali Talukdar v. State of Assam

2004-06-15

AMITAVA ROY

body2004
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The writ petition poses a challenge to the notice dated 25.8.2003 whereby a requisition was said to be made for convening a special meeting of Uparhali Gaon Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the 'Panchayat') for discussing the issue of no confidence against the Petitioner, the process consequent thereto and the resolution dated 23.9.2003 to remove him from the office of the President of the Panchayat. 2. This Court, while issuing notice of motion on 30.9.2003, had in the interim, restrained the Respondent No. 2 from granting approval to the resolution dated 23.9.2003. The Petitioner, as a result, claims to continue as the President of the Panchayat. The Respondent Nos. 10 to 17, the members thereof, have filed an application for vacaling the interim direction and the aforementioned Mrsc. case has been registered on the basis thereof. Both, the writ petition and the Misc. case were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. I have heard Mr. H.N. Sarma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B. Ullah, advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Addl. Sr. GA, Assam for the official Respondents and Mr. N.C. Deis, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.C. Deka, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 10 to 17. 4. The pleaded case of the Petitioner is that, on 25.8.2003 the Respondent Nos. 10 to 17 submitted a requisition with the Secretary of the Panchayat for convening a special meeting thereof, to discuss the issue of no confidence against the Petitioner within a week therefrom. Thereafter, on 18.9.2003, the Secretary informed the President, Rampur Anchalik Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the 'Anchalik Panchayat') that the meeting could not be held for want of approval by the Petitioner and requested him to take necessary action as per the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On the same date i.e., 18.9.2003, the Respondent No. 7, Block Development Officer cum Ex-officio Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat issued a notice convening a meeting of the Panchayat on 23.9.2003 to discuss the said issue. The meeting was accordingly held on the scheduled date in which the President of the Anchalik Panchayat presided. A resolution therein, on the basis of some baseless allegations was adopted expressing want of confidence against the Petitioner. The meeting was accordingly held on the scheduled date in which the President of the Anchalik Panchayat presided. A resolution therein, on the basis of some baseless allegations was adopted expressing want of confidence against the Petitioner. The President of the Anchalik Panchayat thereafter by a communication dated 24.9.2003 forwarded a copy of the proceedings to the Chief Executive Officer, Kamrup Zilla Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Zilla Parishad') for necessary action. According to the Petitioner, the process undertaken for the purpose is in violation of the procedure laid down in Section 15 of the Act and the notice for requisitioning the meeting of the Panchayat as lodged by the Respondent Nos 10 to 17 had not been brought to her notice at any point of time. It has also been alleged that the issue of no confidence, in the meeting held on 23.9.2003 was decided by show of hands though under Section 18(5) of the Act, the same ought to have been decided by secret ballot. 5. No affidavit in opposition has been filed on behalf of the State Respondents or the Panchayat Institutions. 6. In their reply, the private Respondents have alleged, that the Petitioner as the President of the Panchayat had misappropriated the funds thereof acting whimsically against its interest. According to them, on 10.8.2003, a complaint was lodged with the Secretary of the Panchayat pointing out the above facts and expressing loss of confidence in the Petitioner. Thereafter, on 25.8.2003, they submitted a formal letter of request to the Secretary of the Panchayat to convene a special meeting of the Panchayat within a week for moving the no confidence motion against the Petitioner. As the Petitioner in the capacity of the President of the Panchayat refused to grant the approval to convene the special meeting as requested, the Secretary of the Panchayat by his letter dated 18.9.2003 apprised the President of the Anchalik Panchayat of the above developments and requested him to take necessary action under the Act pointing out that the time limit for convening the meeting by the Secretary, had in the meantime expired on 17.9.2003. Accordingly, the Block Development Officer cum Ex-officio Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat by Communication dated 18.9.2003 convened the meeting of the Panchayat on 23.9.2003 to discuss the issue of no confidence against the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Block Development Officer cum Ex-officio Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat by Communication dated 18.9.2003 convened the meeting of the Panchayat on 23.9.2003 to discuss the issue of no confidence against the Petitioner. According to the answering Respondents, the meeting was admittedly held on 23.9.2003 in which the no confidence motion was carried against the Petitioner and a resolution was adopted for his removal from the office of the President of the Panchayat. They have asserted that out of 9 signatories of the requisition notice, 8 supported the motion which is more than 2/3 of the member strength of the Panchayat. As a follow up measure, the President of the Anchalik Panchayat duly forwarded the copy of the Proceedings of the meeting to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad for doing the needful. The answering Respondents have maintained that the entire process was pursued in strict compliance of the provisions of the Act, more particularly Section 15 thereof. 7. In course of the hearing, as a question arose about the date of receipt of the requisition notice dated 25.8.2003, which according to the private Respondents was 2.9.2003, they on 6.4.2004 submitted an additional affidavit to the said effect and also submitted a photocopy of the said notice bearing an endorsement that the same was received on 2.9.2003. 8. The learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the requisition notice being dated 25.8.2003, the notice issued by the Respondent No. 7 convening the meeting of the Panchayat on 23.9.2003 is clearly beyond the time frame prescribed under Section 15 of the Act and therefore, the entire process is violated by an illegality on a fundamental issue and thus is liable to be adjudged illegal null and void. Mr. Sarma while pointing out the absence of the aforementioned endorsement on the body of the requisition notice dated 25.8.2003 annexed to the will petition as well as to the affidavit in opposition of the private Respondents, urged that the note to the said effect appearing in the photocopy of the said notice annexed to the additional affidavit of the private Respondents cannot be accepted on its face value to hold that the same was received by the Secretary on 2.9.2003. He further pointed out that the allegations made in the affidavit against the Petitioner were at variance from those appearing in the requisition notice. He further pointed out that the allegations made in the affidavit against the Petitioner were at variance from those appearing in the requisition notice. According to him, not only the allegations were baseless, the requisition notice had been actually received on 25.8.2003 and therefore, convening of the meeting of the Panchayat by the Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat on 23.9.2003 being in clear contravention of Section 15 of the Act, the impugned process is non est in law and resultantly the impugned resolution dated 23.9.2003 is liable to be set aside and quashed. 9. The next contended that it being the requirement of Section 15 of the Act that the President of the Anchalik Panchayat would convene such a meeting on the failure of the President of the Panchayat to do so within the time prescribed, the notice dated 18.9.2003 for the said purpose issued by the Respondent No. 7, Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat is wholly unauthorized and without jurisdiction and on this count also, the proceeding of the meeting held on 23.9.2003 is patently illegal and is liable to be adjudged as such. Drawing the attention to the entire scheme of Section 15 of the Act, Mr. Sarma strenuously urged that the requirements prescribed therein are to be strictly construed having regard to the drastic consequences that would visit the President or the Vice President facing a no confidence motion as the case may be. There being no provision for delegation of power by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat to the Secretary thereof to convene the meeting, the notice dated 18.9.2003 is wholly unauthorized. As the right to continue as the President of the Panchayat being on elected person was involved the Section demanded strict interpretation and any flexibility therein is impermissible. 10. The learned Senior counsel additionally pointed out that not only the grounds in the requisition notice did not constitute sufficient ground for a special meeting to table the no confidence motion against the Petitioner, the proceedings of the meeting held on 23.9.2003 are also otherwise invalid inasmuch as the motion was decided by show of hands instead of secret ballot as enjoined by Section 18(5) of the Act. 11. 11. In reply, the learned Senior counsel for the private Respondents, while refuting the above contentions, submitted that the requisition notice dated 25.8.2003 was in fact, received by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 2.9.2003, but as the meeting could not be convened for want of approval of the Petitioner, the matter was referred to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat on 18.9.2003. The said authority having approved, the Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat, the Respondent No. 7 accordingly convened the meeting on 23.9.2003 which was well within the time prescribed for the purpose under Section 15 of the Act. Mr. Das urged that calling of the meeting by the Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat was neither irregular nor opposed to the requirements of the said provision of the Act inasmuch as in normal practice, it is the Secretary who convenes the same. Further, as the meeting was convened with the approval of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat, no illegality as alleged was committed. According to him, as in response to the said notice, the Petitioner had attended the special meeting and after due deliberations, the no confidence motion was carried against him, he is estopped from questioning the process. He further confirmed that in the meeting the motion was decided by the secret ballot and not by show of hands. Mr. Das maintained that the requisition notice was received by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 2.9.2003 which is substantiated by the endorsement to that effect appearing on the body of the notice annexed to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the private Respondents. 12. Mr. Choudhury learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate while supporting the submissions advanced by Mr. Das produced the records pertaining to the process. 13. The contextual facts offer two questions. Firstly, whether the notice dated 25.8.2003 was received by the Secretary of the Panchayat on 2.9.2003. Secondly, whether omission on the part of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat to convene the meeting personally on 23.9.2003 vitiates the process, so much so, that decision is liable to be jettisoned as illegal, null and void. 14. If must be observed that the pleaded facts refer to the notice dated 25.8.2003 signed by 9 members of the Panchayat namely Respondent Nos. 10 to 17 and another. 14. If must be observed that the pleaded facts refer to the notice dated 25.8.2003 signed by 9 members of the Panchayat namely Respondent Nos. 10 to 17 and another. The photocopies of the notice annexed to the writ petition and the additional affidavit of the private Respondents Annexures I/A and A are dated 25.8.2003. Though the contents thereof are same, in Annexure-A there is an endorsement proclaiming that it was received on 2.9.2003. Neither the designation of the authority receiving the notice, nor his official seal appears thereon. Apart therefrom, the said notice does not indicate as to whether a copy thereof was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District as required under Section 15(2) of the Act. It is to be marked that the endorsement appearing in Annexure-A is absent in Aimexure I/A. The grounds on which the no confidence motion has been expressed therein are also different from those referred to in the counter of the private Respondents prompting such a move. According to them, on 10.8.2003 a complaint had been lodged with the Secretary of the Panchayat expressing loss of confidence on the Petitioner and that it was followed up by submitting a letter of request on 25.8.2003 to the Secretary to convene a meeting for moving the no confidence motion against the Petitioner. The private Respondents in their affidavit did not plead that the notice dated 25.8.2003 was received by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 2.9.2003. This was for the first time stated in their additional affidavit. 15. The materials available in the official records are still intriguing. No notice dated 25.8.2003 is available therein. The only Application/representation submitted by 9 members of the Panchayat including the private Respondents addressed to the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat bringing allegations against the Petitioner and expressing no confidence is dated 10.8.2003. The contents of the application representation dated 10.8.2003 are materially different from those in the notice dated 25.8.2003. The initial appearing on the left hand top corner of the said application/representation is dated 25.8.2003 and the endorsement on the right hand top comer thereof is dated 27.8.2003. The contents of the application representation dated 10.8.2003 are materially different from those in the notice dated 25.8.2003. The initial appearing on the left hand top corner of the said application/representation is dated 25.8.2003 and the endorsement on the right hand top comer thereof is dated 27.8.2003. There is a representation dated 26.8.2003 lodged by the some signatories with the Block Development Officer cum Ex-Officio Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat, Respondent No. 7 complaining that on 25.8.2003, they had submitted an application expressing no confidence against the Petitioner before the Secretary of the Panchayat which the latter did not accept. The Secretary of the Panchayat by a communication dated 18.9.2003 informed the President of the Anchalik Panchayat that on 2.9.2003 on application/representation signed by 9 members of the Panchayat expressing no confidence against the President thereof had been received but the meeting could not be convened lot want of her approval and that necessary action be taken under Section 15 of the Act. The Corresponding note sheets available in the records indicate that the Block Development Officer cum Ex-Officio Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat on same very date put up the matter before the President thereof who approved the holding of the meeting on 23.9.2003. 16. At the closing stages of the arguments, the learned State counsel also placed on record, the original of the application/representation dated 10.8.2003 and the communication dated 18.9.2003 along with a forwarding letter of the then Secretary of the Panchayat. The document dated 10.8.2003 however, bears an endorsement indicating that the same was received on 2.9.2003. Here again neither the designation of the receiving authority nor his office seal is available. The same document dated 10.8.2003 therefore was received on 25.8.2003 as well as on 2.9.2003. The materials available on the records pertaining to the impugned process therefore are apparently in conflict with the pleaded case of the parties. Not only the requisition notice dated 25.8.2003 is not available in the records, the contents thereof are totally different from those in the application/representation dated 10.8.2003 shown to have been received on two different dates. The learned State counsel has confirmed that the records so produced, i.e. File No. 182/2003-2004 contain the complete set of papers relating to the process. Not only the requisition notice dated 25.8.2003 is not available in the records, the contents thereof are totally different from those in the application/representation dated 10.8.2003 shown to have been received on two different dates. The learned State counsel has confirmed that the records so produced, i.e. File No. 182/2003-2004 contain the complete set of papers relating to the process. The records therefore, in the above premises do not inspire confidence of this Court pertaining to the exercise, validity where of has been questioned in the instant proceeding. In the above state of the records, any amount of argument in favour of the process undertaken cannot save the same. There being no tangible material to hold that the requisition notice dated 25.8.2003 submitted by 9 members of the Panchayat expressing no confidence against the Petitioner was received by the Secretary thereof on 2.9.2003,1 am constrained to hold that the notice date. 18.9.2003 issued by the Respondent No. 7 convening the meeting of the Panchayat on 23.9.2003 for discussing the issue of no confidence against the Petitioner does not accord with the mandate of Section 15 of the Act and therefore, the said notice as well as the proceedings of the meeting held on that date are ex facie illegal, unauthorized and non est in law. 17. Though the finding recorded hereinabove is sufficient to dispose of the petition, the second question being one of considerable moment, needs to be attended to as well. It would be apposite before charting the course for the purpose, to notice some provisions of the Act. 18. "President" as defined under Section 2(34) of the Act means a non official who is elected as the President of the Gaon Panchayat or Anchalik Panchayat or Zilla Parishad. Section 6 dealing with the Constitution of a Panchayat provides that- (a) Ten members are to be directly elected by the voters of the territorial constituencies of the Gaon Panchayat area-one from each constituency in the manner prescribed; and (b) President of the Gaon Panchayat is to be elected directly by the voters of the territorial constituencies of the Gaon Panchayat area in the manner prescribed. The term of every Gaon Panchayat is prescribed to be five years from the date appointed for its first meeting. The term of every Gaon Panchayat is prescribed to be five years from the date appointed for its first meeting. Section 12 prescribes the term of office of the President and Vice President of the Gaon Panchayat to be coterminous with the term of the Gaon Panchayat. Section 15 lays down the detailed procedure for removal of a President or a Vice President of a Gaon Panchayat against whom no confidence is expressed by the members thereof Therein provision has also been made for their removal on the ground of misconduct, neglect in duty etc. The mode of holding the meetings of the Gaon Panchayat has been prescribed under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act. 19. It would appear from a cursory survey of the above provisions of the Act that the President of the Gaon Panchayat is elected directly by the voters of the territorial constituencies comprising the Gaon Panchayat area and is supposed to hold the office for a period of five years, the term of the Gaon Panchayat. Under Section 15, the President shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith when a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of two third of the total member of members of the Gaon Panchayat. 20. It would be expedient at this stage, in the facts of this case, to set out the relevant excerpt of Section 15 of the Act, necessary for deciding the issue. Such a meeting shall be specially convened by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat with approval of the President of the Gaon Panchayat. Such meeting shall be presided over by the President if the motion is against the Vice-President and by the Vice President, if the motion is against the President. In case such a meeting is not convened within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat shall within three days, refer the matter to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat, who shall convene the meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of the information from the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and preside over such meeting. 21. 21. It is evident from hereinabove that a meeting for the purpose of examining the issue of no confidence has to be specially convened by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat with the approval (emphasis supplied) of the President of the Gaon Panchayat and would be presided over by the President if the motion is against the Vice President and by the Vice President if the motion is against the President. In case such a meeting is not convened within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat shall within three days, refer the matter to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat who (emphasis supplied) shall convene the meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of the information from the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and preside over such meeting. The Section further provides that in case, the President of the Anchalik Panchayat does not take action as above, within the period of seven days as prescribed, the concerned Gaon Panchayat Secretary shall inform the matter to the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) as the case may be within three days after the expiry of the stipulated seven days time and the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) shall convene the meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of the information with intimation to the Zilla Parishad and the Anchalik Panchayat and preside over the meeting so convened. The first proviso sanctions that in case, the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (C) is unable to preside over the meeting, he may depute one Gazetted officer under him not below the rank of a Class-1 Gazetted Officer to preside over such meeting. 22. Under Section 15(2), the requisition for a special meeting has to be signed by not less than one third of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat and shall be delivered to the President or Vice-President as the case maybe, of the concerned Gaon Panchayat with information to the Deputy Commissioner of the District. 23. Section 15(3) envisages the procedure for removal of the President or a Vice President on the ground of misconduct neglect in duty or incapacity to perform the same or for any disgraceful conduct. 24. 23. Section 15(3) envisages the procedure for removal of the President or a Vice President on the ground of misconduct neglect in duty or incapacity to perform the same or for any disgraceful conduct. 24. Under Section 15(5), if the members of the Gaon Panchayat express want of confidence both in the President and Vice-President at the same time and issue notices, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat shall within seven days fix)m the date of receipt thereof report the matter to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat who shall arrange (emphasis supplied) to convene the meeting within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the intimation, separately, to consider the motion against the President first and then against the Vice President on the next date and would preside over both the meetings. In case, the President of the Anchalik Panchayat fails to take action as above, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat within three days after expiry of the stipulated fifteen days time, would refer the matter to the concerned Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer (C) as the case maybe who would convene the meeting within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the information with intimation to the concerned Anchalik Panchayat and Zilla Parishad and preside over such meeting. In case of inability, the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (C), is permitted to depute one Gazetted Officer not below the rank of a Class-1 Gazetted Officer to preside over such meeting. 25. The detailed narration of the contents of Section 15 of the Act is to highlight the fact that whereas a special meeting to be convened by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on receiving the requisition notice, first in point of time, has to be with the approval of the President of the Gaon Panchayat, in case of failure to convene such a meeting, the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat, on the matter being referred to him, has to convene the meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of the information from the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. The Section requires the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat to convene the meeting at that stage unlike, in the first phase of the process where the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat is permitted to convene the meeting with the approval of the president of the Gaon Panchayat. The Section requires the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat to convene the meeting at that stage unlike, in the first phase of the process where the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat is permitted to convene the meeting with the approval of the president of the Gaon Panchayat. The phraseologies used at the two stages are distinctly different. Whereas, of the first stage the law enjoins calling of the meeting by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat with the approval of the President thereof, it is obligatory on the part of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat to convene the meeting within the time prescribed, in case the exercise at the preceding stage is not conducted in terms of the edict of the Section. 26. Similarly a flexibility is noticed in Section 15(5) where the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat, on being requested by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat has to arrange to convene the meeting. No such pliancy, however has been conceded to the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (C) to convene the meeting in case, the President of the Anchalik Panchayat fails to do so within the time prescribed, though the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (C) in case, is unable to preside over the meeting, may depute a Gazetted officer of the desired rank for the purpose. 27. The difference in the expressions used in the body of Section 15 of the Act referable to different contingencies and stages relatable to the process of removal of the President or the Vice President of the Gaon Panchayat on the ground of no confidence is therefore obvious. The legislature in its wisdom while providing some elasticity at some stages, has maintained unflinching rigidity at others. The Gaon Panchayat,/Anchalik Panchayat and the Zilla Parishad are institutions of self government. The President of a Gaon Panchayat is elected to his office by the electorate of the territorial constituencies comprising the Gaon Panchayat area. He is thus the elected representative of the people of the said area. The members of the Gaon Panchayat are too the elected representatives of the constituent territorial constituencies. Though the President's term is the same as that of the Gaon Panchayat, for good and sufficient reasons contemplated under Section 15 he is removable from his office. He is thus the elected representative of the people of the said area. The members of the Gaon Panchayat are too the elected representatives of the constituent territorial constituencies. Though the President's term is the same as that of the Gaon Panchayat, for good and sufficient reasons contemplated under Section 15 he is removable from his office. If his removal is sought for on the ground of want of confidence in him, the procedure under Section 15(1) has to be followed. The law markers have provided a three her mechanism for the purpose, presumably to ensure that the process once initiated be unfailingly taken to its logical end. Foreseeing the disastrous consequences qua, the President or the Vice President if a non confidence motion is carried the Legislature has provided a concrete frame work for the procedure, the concerned authorities to pursue the process at different stages and the time schedule to be adhered to. The process is self complete and once the resolution expressing want of confidence in the President or Vice President is taken by the required majority, by operation of law, he is deemed to vacate the office. An elected representative of the people thus would be shown his way out of the office it a resolution of no confidence motion is passed against him following the procedure laid down in the Section. In my considered view, having regard to the serious and irreversible consequences that would visit the President or the Vice President, a strict interpretation of the provision is called for. The authorities have thus to be rigidly held to the dictates of the laid down procedure and any departure therefrom however, minimal would beat the cost of invalidation of the related process. To add to or subtract from the provisions made would mean to legislate on the subject which is not function of this Court. A statute being an edict of the legislature, an interpretation of any provision thereof, has to be in perfect harmony with its intention, lest the very purpose thereof is frustrated. In my opinion, the legislature while enacting this provision being fully aware of the legal consequences has consciously placed the procedure in a water fight compartment. Every details of the procedure has been prescribed to be unmistakably adhered to. In my opinion, the legislature while enacting this provision being fully aware of the legal consequences has consciously placed the procedure in a water fight compartment. Every details of the procedure has been prescribed to be unmistakably adhered to. The rigidity of the procedure has been introduced to maintain a delicate balance between the mandate of the electorate on one hand and the suffering public interest due to the offending activities of the incumbent in die office on the other. The multi tier measures are to ensure that the process initiated is not defeated by default at some stage. The requirement at the same time is that the prescriptions of law have to be unmistakably complied with permissibility on the part of the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to convene the meeting with the approval of the President thereof is understandable as the President himself would be a person interested in the process. Thus, while the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat can convene the meeting with the approval of the President thereof, it has been made incumbent on the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat himself to convene the meeting. To permit the Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat to convene the meeting, be with the approval of the President thereof would not only emasculate the provision of its rigour but would also introduce a superfluity therein not contemplated by the legislature. Had it been so, the law makers would have readily lend such adaptability in the provision. I am, therefore, inclined to concur with the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner on this count. 28. It is the settled principle of interpretation of statutes that function of the Court is to interpret the law according to the intention of the legislature which is to be ascertained from the language thereof and if the words are unambiguous clear and explicit, there is no need to take recourse to any rule of interpretation. The following extract from a decision of the Apex Court in Dadi Jagannadham, Appellant v. Jammulu Ramulu and Ors., Respondents (2001) 7 SCC 71 is befitting : The settled principles of interpretation are that the Court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to do. The following extract from a decision of the Apex Court in Dadi Jagannadham, Appellant v. Jammulu Ramulu and Ors., Respondents (2001) 7 SCC 71 is befitting : The settled principles of interpretation are that the Court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to do. The Court must, as far as possible, adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious, intention of the legislature, Undoubtedly, if there is a defect or an commission in the words used by the legislature, the Court would not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. The Court could not add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result. The Court cannot did the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, or add and mend, and, by construction, make up deficiencies which are there. 29. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in Ram Phal Kundu, Appellant v. Kamal Sharma, Respondent (2004) 2 SCC 759 , it was observed-in no uncertain terms that the legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain. The Courts always presume that the legislature inserted every part of the statute for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. It also underlined the principle hallowed by time, that where law confers power do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. 30. The language used in Section 15 of the Act is clear categorical and unambiguous compliance whereof would not yield any absurd, unreasonable or anomalous results. On the other hand, the guidelines provided are to lead the authorities of the process to its rational end. The notice dated 18.9.2003 runs counter to the letter and spirit of the above provision of the Act and the same therefore cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the meeting held on the basis thereof does not have the sanction of law and the proceedings thereof are illegal, null and void. 31. In the wake of the above, the impugned exercise of expressing no confidence motion against the Petitioner is adjudged illegal, null and void. Resultantly, the meeting held on the basis thereof does not have the sanction of law and the proceedings thereof are illegal, null and void. 31. In the wake of the above, the impugned exercise of expressing no confidence motion against the Petitioner is adjudged illegal, null and void. The notice dated 18.9.2003 and the proceedings of the meeting dated 23.9.2003 are as a corollary, set aside and quashed. 32. The writ petition and the Misc. case are disposed of. No costs.