JUDGMENT AND ORDER : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned State counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 2(1), 3, 4, 5 and 6, as well as Mr. Gias Uddin, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 7 to 15. 2. The case projected in the writ petition is that the writ petitioner was elected as President of No. 48 Latu-Sajpur Gaon Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Gaon Panchayat’) and he was issued a certificate of election by the Deputy Commissioner cum Returning Officer, Karimganj, on 20.02.2013. A requisition notice dated 07.09.2015, under Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat, Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’) signed by nine members of the said Gaon Panchayat was served upon the Secretary for convening a meeting to discuss a no-confidence motion brought against the petitioner. As no meeting was convened, the Secretary referred the matter to the President of the North Karimganj Anchalik Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Anchalik Panchayat’) on 22.09.2015, requesting him to convene a special meeting for discussion on the no-confidence motion. The petitioner made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, alleging that the respondent nos. 6 to 15 had hatched a conspiracy to remove him from the office of the President of the Gaon Panchayat. As no action was taken on the said representation, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as WP (C) 6210/2015. By order dated 08.10.2015, the writ petition was dismissed at the motion stage holding that no case was made out by the petitioner for stalling the no-confidence motion. The President of the Anchalik Panchayat, on 30.09.2015, convened a special meeting on 09.10.2015, at 11-30 A.M. to discuss and decide the no-confidence motion brought against the petitioner. But the President of the Anchalik Panchayat re-fixed the date for holding a special meeting on 14.10.2015. Incorporating the aforesaid development, the Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat (respondent no. 5) addressed a letter, dated 09.10.2015, to the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj. The Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, convened a special meeting on 16.10.2015 to discuss the no-confidence motion and addressed a letter dated 13.10.2015 to Circle Officer, Karimganj Circle, intimating him about the same and also empowering him to preside over the meeting and directing him to take necessary steps for conducting the special meeting. The Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, convened a special meeting on 16.10.2015 to discuss the no-confidence motion and addressed a letter dated 13.10.2015 to Circle Officer, Karimganj Circle, intimating him about the same and also empowering him to preside over the meeting and directing him to take necessary steps for conducting the special meeting. On that very date, the Circle Officer issued a notice informing that a special meeting for discussing the no-confidence motion against the petitioner would be held on 16.10.2015, at 11-30 A.M. in his office. The meeting was accordingly held on 16.10.2015 and the same was presided over by the Circle Officer. In the meeting, voting by way of secret ballot was resorted in accordance with the Section 18(5) of the Act. On counting of votes, it was found that nine members had voted in favour of the motion and, accordingly, resolution was adopted expressing no-confidence against the petitioner. 3. Respondent No. 2 had filed affidavit. Joint affidavit was also filed by respondent Nos. 2(1) and 5. In the affidavit of respondent no. 2, it is averred that the special meeting for deciding the no-confidence motion was held on 16.10.2015 in terms of the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj and in such meeting, voting was held by secret ballot and nine members voted in favour of the motion. In the affidavit of respondent Nos. 2(1) and 5, it is averred that on 08.09.2015, the Secretary of the Panchayat had put up a note to the petitioner to fix up a date and time for convening a special meeting for discussing the no-confidence motion but the President of the Panchayat did not accord approval for holding the meeting. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Panchayat forwarded the matter to the President of the Anchalik Pancayat vide his letter dated 22.09.2015 and consequently, the President of the Anchalik Panchayat gave his approval to hold a special meeting on 30.09.2015 and accordingly, notice was issued on 30.09.2015 by fixing the date of the special meeting on 09.10.2015. However, on the date of the meeting, the President of the Anchalik Panchayat submitted a letter, addressed to the Executive Officer, North Karimganj Anchalik Panchayat, stating that he would not be able to attend the meeting due to his sudden illness and, accordingly, re-fixing the date for the meeting on 14.10.2015. However, on the date of the meeting, the President of the Anchalik Panchayat submitted a letter, addressed to the Executive Officer, North Karimganj Anchalik Panchayat, stating that he would not be able to attend the meeting due to his sudden illness and, accordingly, re-fixing the date for the meeting on 14.10.2015. In such circumstances, the Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat informed the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, vide his letter dated 09.10.2015. A special meeting was convened by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, on 16.10.2015, under the president-ship of the Circle Officer. It is also stated that the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had addressed a letter dated 09.10.2015 to the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, enclosing a petition submitted by nine members of the Panchayat informing that the meeting had not been convened at the office of the Anchalik Panchayat and the President had re-fixed the meeting on 14.10.2015. In the aforesaid circumstances, both the Secretary of the Panchayat as well as the Executive Officer, North Karimganj Anchalik Panchayat, without waiting till 14.10.2015, informed the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, vide their respective letters about the aforesaid developments and, thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner convened a meeting on 16.10.2015 for considering and deciding the no-confidence motion. 4. The petitioner had filed affidavit-in-reply to both the aforesaid affidavits filed by the respondents. 5. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned resolution adopting no-confidence motion against the petitioner was passed in violation of the provisions as contained in Section 15 of the Act. He has submitted that fixing of date on 16.10.2015 is beyond the time-limit prescribed under Section 15 of the Act. He has also submitted that if the special meeting is not convened within a period 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat is required to refer the matter to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat within three days thereafter, who is, then, enjoined upon to convene a meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of information from the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. It is submitted by him that the aforesaid time schedule prescribed has not been followed. Further submission of Mr. It is submitted by him that the aforesaid time schedule prescribed has not been followed. Further submission of Mr. Biswas is that no role is envisaged for the Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat in the matter of referring the matter to the Deputy Commissioner when the President of the Anchalik Panchayat does not take action and it is the obligation of the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to inform the matter to the Deputy Commissioner within three days after expiry of the stipulated period of seven days. Thus, he submits, that there has been flagrant violation of the prescription of time-limit, which is to be mandatorily observed and therefore, there is no sanctity in the resolution adopted against the petitioner and the same is required to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments in Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (1976) 2 SCC 128 , Basanti Das vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2004 (Supp) GLT 717 and Nosir Ahmed Mazumder vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2010 (5) GLT 103. 6. Mr. Gias Uddin, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 to 15, has submitted that the President of the Panchayat, despite having been informed by the Secretary by way of putting up a note on 08.09.2015, did not convene the meeting on the plea that the allegations made against him are not correct. In such circumstances, the Secretary, by his letter dated 22.09.2015, referred the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat. He has submitted that prescription of time, as laid down in Section 15 of the Act, is not mandatory but is only directory. It is submitted by him that there was deliberate attempt not to hold special meeting to discuss the no-confidence motion at Gaon Panchayat and Anchalik Panchayat levels and the President of the Anchalik Panchayat had also not convened the meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of information, which was brought to his notice on 26.09.2015 and he had convened the meeting on 09.10.2015. However, the said meeting was also not held and was deferred by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat to 14.10.2015 on the pretext that he was not well. However, the said meeting was also not held and was deferred by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat to 14.10.2015 on the pretext that he was not well. Thinking that the meeting would be held at the office of the Anchalik Panchayat on 09.10.2015, though it was fixed beyond the time-limit prescribed under the Act, the matter was not referred to the Deputy Commissioner. However, when the meeting was not held on 09.10.2015, both the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and the Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat informed the Deputy Commissioner about the state of affairs, who, on being so informed, convened a special meeting for the purpose of considering the requisition for no-confidence motion on 16.10.2015. He submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and, accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Gias Uddin, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 to 15 has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Mumtaz Rana Laskar and Others vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2006 (1) GLT 46, Swapna Sen vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2006 (2) GLT 14, Mosira Bibi vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2006 (4) GLT 460, Forhana Begum Laskar vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2009 (3) GLT 575 and Ranjit Singh vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2012 (2) GLT 106. 7. Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned State counsel, has also endorsed the submission of Mr. Gias Uddin. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 9. For a better appreciation, Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, is reproduced below: “15. No-confidence motion against the President and Vice-President. (1) Every President or Vice-President shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith when resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of two-third of the total ;number of members of the Gaon Panchayats. 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. 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 meeing 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 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 president over such meeting. In case the President of the Anchalik Panchayat does not take action as above, within the specified seven days time, 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 (C) 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. Provided that the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (C) as the case may be, in case of his inability to preside over the meeting, may depute one Gazetted Officer under him not below the rank of Class-I Vazetted Officer to preside over such meeting. Provided further that when a no-confidence motion is lost, no such motion shall be allowed in the next six months. (2) The requisition for such a special meeting, under Sub-Section (1) shall 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 may be, of the concerned Gaon Panchayat with intimation to the Deputy Commissioner of the District. (2) The requisition for such a special meeting, under Sub-Section (1) shall 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 may be, of the concerned Gaon Panchayat with intimation to the Deputy Commissioner of the District. (3) Without prejudice to the provision under this Act, a President or a Vice-President of a Gaon Panchayat may be removed from office by the concerned Anchalik Panchayat with the approval of the Zilla Parishad for misconduct of his/her duties or neglects or incapacity to perform his/her duties or for being persistently remiss in the discharge of or guilty of any disgraceful conduct and President or Vice-President so removed shall not be eligible for re-election as President or Vice-President during the remaining term of office either as President or Vice-President of such Gaon Panchayat. (4) A Vice-President so removed from his office under Sub-Section (3) may also be removed from the membership of the Gaon Panchayat by the Government after giving the member a reasonable opportunity to furnish his explanation. (5) In under Sub-Section (1), the members of the Gaon Panchayat express want of confidence both in the President and Vice-President of Gaon Panchayat at the same time and issue notices, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat within seven days from the date of receipt of such notices, shall report the matter to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat who shall arrange to convene the meetings within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the intimation, separately, to consider the motion against the President first and to consider the motion against the Vice-President next day and shall preside over both the meetings. The President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat president the meetings shall have no vote. In case the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat does not take action as above, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, within three days after the expiry of the stipulated fifteen days time, shall refer the matter to the concerned Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer (C) as the case may be. In case the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat does not take action as above, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, within three days after the expiry of the stipulated fifteen days time, shall refer the matter to the concerned Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer (C) as the case may be. On receipt of the information the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, shall convene both the meetings in the manner as above 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 meetings. Provided that the concerned Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, in case of his inability to preside over the meetings, may depute a Gazetted Officer not below the rank of Class-I Gazetted Officer to preside over such meetings. Provided further that if it is not possible to hold the meeting for a situation due to non-attendance of the requisite number of members in such meeting or meetings as the case may be, the no-confidence motion shall automatically stand cancelled and motion shall be deemed to have list, in the event of which no such motion shall be allowed within the six month.” 10. In Basanti Das (supra), it was held that the procedure and the time-limit prescribed under Section 15 of the Act is mandatory and that any deviation there-from, even if minimum, would vitiate the process undertaken to pursue a motion of no-confidence against the President or the Vice-President of a Gaon Panchayat. In Mumtaz Rana Laskar (supra), a Division Bench of this Court was seized with the task of interpretation of Section 15 qua the procedure and the time-frame for conducting the process pertaining to a no-confidence motion brought against the President or Vice-President of a Gaon Panchayat under the Act. In Mumtaz Rana Laskar (supra), a Division Bench of this Court was seized with the task of interpretation of Section 15 qua the procedure and the time-frame for conducting the process pertaining to a no-confidence motion brought against the President or Vice-President of a Gaon Panchayat under the Act. It was held that a mere procedural irregularity in the matter of making the reference by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, either to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat or to the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, would have no bearing whatsoever upon the resolution passed in the specially convened meeting expressing no-confidence upon the President or the Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat, as the case may be, and that the same by itself would not result in causing any prejudice to the person against whom the motion is carried out. It was also observed that the democratic process envisaged in Section 15 of the Act cannot be put at the disposal of an insignificant authority, who is required to convene the meeting in accordance with law and that any inaction on its part ought not to be allowed to result in frustration and subversion of the various schemes of the Act and accordingly, the view taken in Basanti Das (supra) was disapproved. 11. In Forhana Begum Laskar vs. State of Assam and Others, a Full Bench of this Court had observed that the view taken by the Division Bench in Mumtaz Rana Laskar (supra) cannot be construed to denote that the entire scheme of Section 15 and all its essential features had been enunciated to be directory and not mandatory. It was held that it rather seemed to accentuate that each and every departure from the procedure and the time schedule contained therein, would not impair the exercise so as to decisively annihilate the same. 12. In Swapna Sen (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that the action of the Secretary in sending the notice notifying the date of the meeting is only ministerial in nature and, as such, rejected the contention advanced that as the President of the Anchalik Panchayat did not issue notice for the meeting, the entire proceeding is vitiated. 13. In Swapna Sen (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that the action of the Secretary in sending the notice notifying the date of the meeting is only ministerial in nature and, as such, rejected the contention advanced that as the President of the Anchalik Panchayat did not issue notice for the meeting, the entire proceeding is vitiated. 13. In Mosira Bibi (supra), the President of the Gaon Panchayat had refused to approve the proposal submitted by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to convene a special meeting to discuss the motion of no-confidence brought by the members as required under Section 15 of the Act. The Secretary, on the failure of the President of the Gaon Panchayat to approve the proposal for holding such meeting, referred the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat. The Anchalik Panchayat held the meeting after a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the reference from the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Division Bench had observed that even if it is taken that the requirement of convening the meeting by the Anchalik Panchayat within seven days is mandatory in nature, such provision can be waived by the President of the Gaon Panchayat as the time-table given in Section 15 of the Act is in the interest of the President or the Vice President, as the case may be, of the Gaon Panchayat. It was held that the President of the Gaon Panchayat, having avoided fulfilling his obligation under Section 15(1) of approving the proposal submitted by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to convene the special meeting to discuss the no-confidence motion, waived the requirement of holding the meeting within seven days by the Anchalik Panchayat even if such requirement is taken as mandatory in character. It was further held that writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to facilitate the President of the Gaon Panchayat President who had voluntarily avoided to comply with the requirement of law. 14. It was further held that writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to facilitate the President of the Gaon Panchayat President who had voluntarily avoided to comply with the requirement of law. 14. In Ranjit Singh (supra), this Court had laid down that once the President of the Gaon Panchayat, either by conduct or otherwise, refuses to accord approval to a proposal put forward by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to convene a special meeting to discuss a no-confidence motion, he is not required to wait for expiry of the period of fifteen days to refer the matter to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat, and it was held that the Secretary has to refer the matter to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat within a period of three days from the date of such refusal. 15. In the instant case, the writ petitioner had not accorded approval to the proposal for holding a special meeting stating as follows: “Secretary, Allegation brought by members against the President in respect of financial misappropriation is totally false and ingenuine and selection of IAY beneficiaries in improper way as stated is not correct. Beneficiaries selected for IAY and MSDP etc. is made through Gaon Sabha by observing all formalities moreover some signatures in the no-confidence application is not genuine and duplicate. Hence fixing of date and time etc. for the convening of no-confidence meeting does not arise at all.” 16. In the writ petition the petitioner had not indicated about his aforesaid refusal to grant approval to hold the meeting and, to that extent, the petitioner had not made a correct and true disclosure of material facts. What was stated is that the Secretary had failed to convene the meeting at the Gaon Panchayat level, portraying a picture, as if the Secretary, on his own volition, had not taken steps to convene the meeting. 17. The submission of Mr. Biswas that the Secretary referred the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat on 22.09.2015, i.e. before expiry of fifteen days from the date of requisition, is without any merit as the President had not approved to hold the meeting when note was put up to him on 08.09.2015. The date on which the petitioner had refused to approve holding of the meeting is not mentioned in the aforesaid note. The date on which the petitioner had refused to approve holding of the meeting is not mentioned in the aforesaid note. Materials on record disclose that the file was put up to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat on 26.09.2015. As per the provisions of the Act, the meeting was to be convened by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat within seven days. However, the meeting was convened on 09.10.2015. But the same will not invalidate the meeting convened. It is already noticed that the view taken in Basanti Das (supra) that deviation in time schedule will vitiate the process initiated for convening a special meeting to discuss a no-confidence motion was not approved in Mumtaz Rana Laskar (supra). Where a statutory functionary is required to perform a statutory duty within the time prescribed, the same is directory and not mandatory. That apart, the word “shall” employed in a provision of a statute, which is procedural in nature, shall not be construed to be mandatory if no prejudice is caused. 18. In Md. Intaz Ali vs. State of Assam and Others, WP (C) No. 3032 of 2014, decided on 11.08.2016, this Court had held that if actions as contemplated under Section 15(1) is sought to be taken before the time schedule prescribed under the Act and a special meeting is sought to be convened before the period as specified under Section 15 of the Act, the same may be held to be running counter to the mandate of the Act and, in that context, the time prescribed may be held to be mandatory. However, in the context of a special meeting held beyond the period prescribed under the Act, time schedule has to be construed to be directory and, therefore, there are two facets inherent in prescription of time schedule under the Act. 19. There is another aspect of the matter. The convening of the meeting on 09.10.2015 by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat was also brought to the notice of the Court in the earlier writ petition, namely, WP (C) 6210/2015, filed by the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed. 19. There is another aspect of the matter. The convening of the meeting on 09.10.2015 by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat was also brought to the notice of the Court in the earlier writ petition, namely, WP (C) 6210/2015, filed by the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed. A perusal of the order passed in WP (C) 6210/2015 goes to show that only prayer that was made was to set aside the date fixed for holding of the no-confidence motion in view of the representation dated 29.09.2015, which the petitioner had filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj. Thus, it appears that the legality or otherwise of the notice dated 30.09.2015 was not put to challenge by the petitioner and, therefore, at any rate, the petitioner is estopped from raising any plea with regard to the legality and validity of the notice dated 30.09.2015. 20. Reliance placed by Mr. Biswas in Hukam Chand Shyam Lal (supra) to contend that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it is to be exercised in that manner or not at all and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden, is not attracted in the instant case. The said submission was advanced in the context of the Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat informing the Deputy Commissioner about meeting being not held on 09.10.2015, whereas statute required the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner when no meeting is held by the Anchalik Panchayat. In the aforesaid context, he had also placed reliance on Nosir Ahmed Mazumder (supra). In Nosir Ahmed Mazumder (supra), this Court had set aside a resolution of no-confidence adopted against the President of the Gaon Panchayat concerned on the ground that the Act does not provide any authority or power upon the District Magistrate to postpone the date and change the venue of the statutory meeting which was fixed by the President of the Gaon Panchayat under Section 15 of the Act. The same is not the case here. The Deputy Commissioner had exercised his power under Section 15 of the Act when no special meeting was held by the Anchalik Panchayat. The same is not the case here. The Deputy Commissioner had exercised his power under Section 15 of the Act when no special meeting was held by the Anchalik Panchayat. The information to be given to the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) is ministerial in nature and it cannot be suggested that any substantive action is undertaken by making such reference and such action cannot be equated with exercise of any power. The Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat is in a better position than the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to know as to whether any such meeting was held in the Anchalik Panchayat. That apart, the post of Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat is subordinate to the post of Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat. In any case, in the instant case, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had also informed the Deputy Commissioner about the fact that no meeting had taken place on 09.10.2015. The Executive Officer of Anchalik Panchayat had not fixed any date or venue of any special meeting in the instant case. 21. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference and, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.