ORDER : INDIRA SHAH, J. Heard Mr. Kardak Ete, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Ete, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Ms. Pubi Pangu, learned Government advocate, for State respondent Nos. 1 and 3; Mr. Ajin Apang, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. Nani Anju, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2; as well as Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of private respondent Nos. 4 to 7. 2. The petitioner, Smt. Yaki Taring, was elected as an Anchal Samiti Member ('ASM') for Yoi/Molo/Dupu/Row villages in the Panchayat election held in the year 2013. Thereafter, she was elected as the Chairperson of 15-Payum Anchal Samiti on 7.6.2013. The 15-Payum Anchal Samiti consists of 6 ASMs; out of which, one is elected as the Chairperson. An application dated 11.4.2016, was submitted to the Member-Secretary, 15-Payum Anchal Samiti, Siang District, to move a no-confidence motion against the petitioner for the post of Chairperson. Accordingly, the said Member-Secretary issued a Notice dated 18.4.2016 fixing a date of meeting to take-up the no-confidence motion. The petitioner, thereafter, was served with the Notice along with the copy of the complaint dated 11.4.2016 and she found that signature of one of the ASM, i.e., Smt. Yayon Tachung (private respondent No. 4, herein), was forged since the said private respondent No. 4, being an illiterate, always puts her thumb impression. However, in the said complaint, an initial has been inscribed against the said private respondent No. 4. Therefore, doubting the genuineness of the said complaint, the instant petitioner lodged an First Information Report (FIR) before the Officer in-Charge, Kaying Police Station, on 22.4.2016, and on the same day, i.e., 22.4.2016, she made a representation to the Member-Secretary, 15-Payum Anchal Samiti, for cancellation of the proposed no-confidence motion, scheduled to be held on 26.4.2016. 3. The petitioner's representation for cancellation of no-confidence motion was not considered by the authority concerned and the no-confidence motion was moved against her, on the scheduled date. It is alleged by the petitioner that no opportunity to controvert the allegations levelled against her and/or to explain to her, the reasons of moving the said no-confidence motion, was afforded to her. The petitioner's representation for cancellation of no-confidence motion was not considered by the authority concerned and the no-confidence motion was moved against her, on the scheduled date. It is alleged by the petitioner that no opportunity to controvert the allegations levelled against her and/or to explain to her, the reasons of moving the said no-confidence motion, was afforded to her. In the said meeting, on the basis of a voice-vote, it was declared that the petitioner has lost the confidence of the House and, therefore, ceased to be the Chairperson of the said Anchal Samiti with immediate effect. Immediately, thereafter, in the said meeting, the private respondent No. 4 Smt. Yayon Tachung was elected as the new Chairperson of 15-Payum Anchal Samiti, again, by voice-vote. 4. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the no confidence motion, on the grounds that the said no-confidence motion was initiated on the basis of a forged signature and genuineness of the complaint, was not ascertained, and as such, the no-confidence motion could not have been held without ascertaining the genuineness of the complaint, in question. Moreover, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain her case or to controvert the allegations that were levelled against her. 5. The writ petitioner has also challenged the election of the said private respondent No. 4 as the new Chairperson of 15-Payum Anchal Samiti, on the ground that provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2001, which provides for filing of nomination, etc., followed by a secret ballot, were not complied with. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.4.2016 declaring the private respondent No. 4 as the new Chairperson of the said Anchal Samiti, by voice-vote, is totally illegal and, therefore, the petitioner has vehemently contended that the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 6. The private respondent No. 4, by filing her interlocutory application, before this court, has stated that she being an illiterate person, authorised her husband to sign and execute any assignment or work pertaining to the said Panchayat. The contention of the said private respondent No. 4 is that even if it is assumed that the signature of private respondent No. 4 was declared to be invalid, there were 3 other signatories who constitute 50 per cent of the total number, which was enough to initiate the said motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. The contention of the said private respondent No. 4 is that even if it is assumed that the signature of private respondent No. 4 was declared to be invalid, there were 3 other signatories who constitute 50 per cent of the total number, which was enough to initiate the said motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. The said respondent No. 4 has denied that the petitioner was not afforded with any opportunity to speak and has, per contra, contended that the petitioner participated in the said no-confidence motion and, therefore, the no-confidence motion moved against the petitioner, does not suffer from any legal infirmities. It is, however, conceded by respondent No. 4 that there were procedural lapses in election of her (private respondent No. 4) as the new' Chairperson of 15-Payum Anchal Samiti. 7. Relying on the case of Dipak Babaria v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 3 SCC 502 , and Mahinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 , Mr. Ete, learned senior counsel, has submitted to the effect that "Ministers and public officers at all levels, must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers, were conferred, without exceeding of limits of such powers and not unreasonably". In the case of Dipak Babaria (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that where the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner and none other manner. In the case of Mahinder Singh (supra), the application of principles of natural justice to administrative proceedings, has been discussed in great detail and it has been held by the Apex Court in paragraph Nos. 43, 55, and 63, as under : "43. Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has, many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes it, applies when people are affected by acts of a authority. It is the bone of healthy government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge-made laws Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam - and of Kautilya's Arthasastra - the rule of law' has shed this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. It is the bone of healthy government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge-made laws Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam - and of Kautilya's Arthasastra - the rule of law' has shed this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case-law' or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American System. 55. Law' cannot be divorced from life and so it is that the life of the law is not logic but experience. If, by the experiential test, importing the right to be heard will paralyse the process, law will exclude it. It has been said that no army can be commanded by a debating society, but it is also true that the House of Commons did debate, during the days of debacle and disaster, agon)' and crisis of the Second World War, the life-and-death aspects of the supreme command by the then British Prime Minister "to the distress of all our friends and to the delight of all ours foes" - too historic to be lost on jurisprudence. Law lives not in a world of abstractions but in a cosmos of concreteness and to give up something good must be limited to extreme cases. If to condemn, unheard is wrong, it is wrong except where it is overborne by dire social necessity. Such is the sensible perspective we should adopt if ad hoc or haphazard solutions should be eschewed. 63. In Wiseman v. Boreman, there was a hint of the competitive claims of hurry and hearing. Lord Reid said: "Even where the decision has to be reached by a body acting judicially, there must be a balance between the need for expedition and the need to give full opportunity to the defendants to see material against him". We agree that the elaborate and sophisticated methodology of a formalised hearing may be injurious to promptitude so essential in an election under way. Even so, natural justice is pragmatically flexible and is amenable to capsulation under the compulsive pressure of circumstances. We agree that the elaborate and sophisticated methodology of a formalised hearing may be injurious to promptitude so essential in an election under way. Even so, natural justice is pragmatically flexible and is amenable to capsulation under the compulsive pressure of circumstances. To burke it altogether may not be a stroke of fairness except in very exceptional circumstances. Even in Wiseman where all that was sought to be done was to see if there was a prima facie case of proceed with a tax case where, inevitably, a fuller hearing would be extended at a later stage of the proceedings, Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and Lord Wilberforce suggested "that there might be exceptional cases where to decide upon it ex-parte would be unfair, and it would be the duty of the tribunal to take appropriate steps to eliminate unfairness" (Lord Denning, M.R., in Howard v. Borneman summarised the observations of the Law Lords in this form). No doctrinaire approach is desirable but the court must be anxious to salvage the cardinal rule to the extent permissible in a given case. After all, it is not obligatory that counsel should be allowed to appear nor is it compulsory that oral evidence should be adduced. Indeed, It is not even imperative that written statements should be called for. Disclosure of the prominent circumstances and asking for an immediate explanation orally or otherwise may, in many cases, be sufficient compliance. It is even conceivable that an urgent meeting with the concerned parties summoned at an hour's notice, or in a crisis, even a telephone call, may suffice. If all that is not possible as in the case of a fleeing person whose passport has to be impounded lest he should evade the course of justice or a dangerous nuisance needs immediate abatement, the action may be taken followed immediately by a hearing for the purpose of sustaining or setting aside the action to the extent feasible. It is quite on the cards that the Election Commission if pressed by circumstances may give a short hearing. In any view, it is not easy to appreciate whether before hearing the parties, and revoke the earlier directions. We do not wish to disclose our mind on what, in the critical circumstances, should have been done for a fair play of fair hearing. In any view, it is not easy to appreciate whether before hearing the parties, and revoke the earlier directions. We do not wish to disclose our mind on what, in the critical circumstances, should have been done for a fair play of fair hearing. This is a matter pre-eminently for the Election Tribunal to Judge, having before him the vivified totality of all the factors. All that we need emphasise is that the content of natural justice is a dependent variable, not an easy causality." 8. In the Interlocutory Application being IA(WP) No. 120(AP)2016, the applicant/private respondent No. 4 has admitted that the signature in the complaint lodged against the petitioner, was not her signature. The petitioner had, in fact, challenged the genuineness of the complaint by filing a representation before the Member-Secretary of 15-Payum Anchal Samiti, on 22.4.2016. By the above act, the private respondent No. 4, herself, has clouded the genuineness of the said complaint. 9. In the case of Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437 , it has been observed by the Apex Court, in paragraph Nos. 20 and 21, as under : "20. The aforesaid judgments are passed on the application of legal maxim sub/ato fundamento, cadit opus, which means in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls. 21. In Badrinath v. State of T.N. of this court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential act, action, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle of consequential order which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceeding is equally applicable to the administrative orders." 10. Section 63 of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1997, reads as under : "63. (1) A motion of no confidence may be moved by one-third of the total number of directly elected members of a Gram Panchayat or an Anchal Samiti or a Zilla Parishad against Chairperson after giving at least seven days notice in writing to the Member-Secretary or any other prescribed authority of Gram Panchayat or Anchal Samiti or Zilla Parishad of their intention to move such a motion. (2) If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of directly elected members of the Gram Panchayat or an Anchal Samiti or a Zilla Parishad, present and voting, the Chairperson shall cease to hold office. (2) If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of directly elected members of the Gram Panchayat or an Anchal Samiti or a Zilla Parishad, present and voting, the Chairperson shall cease to hold office. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the Chairperson of a Gram Panchayat or an Anchal Samiti or Zilla Parishad shall not preside at a meeting in which a motion of no-confidence against him is under discussion, but he shall have the right to speak or otherwise take part in the proceedings of such meeting." Thus, sub-section (3) to section 63 of the said Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1997, gives the right to the Chairperson against whom the no-confidence motion is moved, to have the right to speak or otherwise, to take part in the proceedings of such meeting. 11. In the said complaint/intention to move the no-confidence motion against the petitioner, dated 11.4.2016; there are as many as 5 allegations levelled against her. 12. The minutes of No-Confidence Motion does not disclose that any opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the allegations levelled against her or to explain her case. The said minutes, reads, as under : "Government Of Arunachakl Pradesh Office Of The Member Secretary: 15- Pa Yum Anchal Samity, Siang District: Payum: No. PYM/PRJ-17/16-17 Dated Kaying the 26th April 2016 MINUTES On 26.4.2016 a no-confidence motion was moved by Smt. Yayon Tachung, ASM of Payum village and others against Smty Yaki Taring, A.C.P. in this regard a meeting was conducted at the office of the EACs Conference Hall, Kaying. In the no-confidence motion, the sitting ASMs proposed Shri Takut Yaying, ASM Gaming Village as portem Chairman of the meeting and he started that the present ACP Smt. Yaki Taring has no any co-operation with the ASMs of 15-Payum Anchal Samity and no any ASM meeting has been conducted during passed year. So we the sitting ASMs moved no-confidence motion against Smt. Yaki Taring. The members present voted against Smt. Yaki Taring, ACP, by voice vote, except Smt. Yaki Taring, herself. Therefore, Smt. Yaki Taring lost the confidence of the House and cease to be the Chairperson of 15-Payum Anchal Samiti with immediate effect. Further, the House present elected Smt. Yayon Tachung, ASM, Payum village, BY VOICE VOTE, as new Chairperson of 15-Payum Anchal Samiti. Member present: 1. Therefore, Smt. Yaki Taring lost the confidence of the House and cease to be the Chairperson of 15-Payum Anchal Samiti with immediate effect. Further, the House present elected Smt. Yayon Tachung, ASM, Payum village, BY VOICE VOTE, as new Chairperson of 15-Payum Anchal Samiti. Member present: 1. Sri Takut Yaying, ASM Gaming Village Sd/- 2. Sri Tamin Yapl, ASM Gasheng Village Sd/- 3. Sri Tagom Yaying, ASM Bogu/mega/Pame/Reying Village Sd/- 4. Smt. Yayon Tachung, ASM Payum Village Sd/- 5. Smt. Yaki Taring, ASM Yiro/Molo/Dupu/Row village Sd/- Sd/- (Gyabo Pertin) Member-Secretary 15-Payum Anchal Samiti." 13. Section 67 of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2001, reads as under : "67. (1) The Chairperson of Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti or Zilla Parishad shall be chosen by the elected members of the Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti or Zilla Parishad from amongst themselves in the first meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti or Zilla Parishad fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. (2) That the meeting shall be held at the date and time fixed by the Deputy Commissioner at the Headquarters of the Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti or Zilla Parishad and shall be presided over by the officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner. (3) The notice convening the meeting, among other things, may specify the hour or hours during which nomination papers shall be received, scrutinised or may be withdrawn. (4) If, after the time fixed for withdrawals of candidature, there remains only one candidate for the office of Chairperson, the officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner shall forthwith declare him elected a Chairperson in Form 26. (5) If there is no validly nominated candidate, the proceedings for seeking nominations shall commence afresh at a time for the purpose fixed by the Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner. (6) If the number of contesting candidates for the election of Chairperson is more than one, a poll shall be taken by secret ballot. (7) If poll is to be taken, the Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner shall assign symbol to each contesting candidates and the decision of the said Officer in the allotment of symbols shall be final. (6) If the number of contesting candidates for the election of Chairperson is more than one, a poll shall be taken by secret ballot. (7) If poll is to be taken, the Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner shall assign symbol to each contesting candidates and the decision of the said Officer in the allotment of symbols shall be final. (8) Immediately after allotment of symbols, the Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner shall announce the names of the contesting candidates on the basis of list of contesting candidates prepared by him in Form 27 and a copy of the said list of contesting candidates along with symbols shall be supplied to each candidate. (9) (a) The ballot paper for the election shall be in the Form 28. (b) The names of candidates shall be typed or legibly written on ballot papers in the same order as they appear in the list of contesting candidates. (c) If two or more candidates bear the same name, they shall be distinguished by addition of their father's/neighbour's name, as the case may be or in such other manner as the Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner may deem fit. (10) In the meeting when poll is taken, votes shall be cast only by members present in the meeting by secret ballot, and no member shall be allowed to vote by post or proxy. (11) The Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner shall cause the place of polling, at the hour declared for polling to be closed till the time fixed by him for completion of poll and shall not admit any electro therein after the time. (12) (a) The counting of votes shall commence immediately after the close of poll as far as possible. (b) Votes shall be counted under the supervision of Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner in the meeting itself. (c) The officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner shall scrutinise the polled ballot papers and separate those which are invalid. Invalid votes shall be rejected and the ground of rejection shall be endorsed on the back portion of such ballot papers. (b) Votes shall be counted under the supervision of Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner in the meeting itself. (c) The officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner shall scrutinise the polled ballot papers and separate those which are invalid. Invalid votes shall be rejected and the ground of rejection shall be endorsed on the back portion of such ballot papers. (13) A ballot paper shall be invalid on the ground - (i) that, it appears any mark or signature by which an elector can be identified, or (ii) That, the mark is placed against more than one name, or (iii) That, no mark is recorded on the face of the ballot or the mark is so placed that it could not be ascertained for whom the vote has been given or the mark is made by an instrument other than the one supplied for the purpose by the Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, or (iv) that, it is a spurious ballot paper." 14. Thus, section 67 of the said Rules of 2001, provides for a detail procedure in respect of the election of a Chairperson of Gram Panchayat/Anchal Samiti/Zilla Parishad. However, in the instant case, none of the said procedures were followed in electing the said private respondent No. 4 to the post of Chairperson of 15-Payum Anchal Samiti. 15. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26.4.2016, issued by the Member-Secretary, 15-Payum Anchal Samiti, removing the petitioner from the post of Chairperson of 15-Payum Anchal Samiti and election of the private respondent No. 4 Smt. Yayon Tachung, as the new Chairperson of the said Anchal Samiti, by voice-vote, is liable to be set aside and quashed. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.4.2016 is hereby set aside and quashed. Resultantly, the removal of the petitioner as Chairperson and electing the private respondent No. 4 as new Chairperson of 15-Payum Anchal Samiti, is hereby declared null and void. 17. With the above directions, this writ petition is hereby allowed and the same shall stand disposed of. The interlocutory application so filed by the private respondent No. 4 shall accordingly stand dismissed.