JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. Also heard Mr. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 14. 2. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filling W.P.(C) No. 6607 of 2015 with the grievance that the requisition letter dated 9.9.2015 for seeking a vote of no-confidence against him as the President of Jalorchar Nayagaon Gaon Panchayat (the Gaon Panchayat for short) was not brought to his notice as required under Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (the Panchayat Act for short). 3. The writ petition was disposed of on 4.11.2015 as agreed to by the rival parties with a liberty to the requisitionists to take steps by way of making a fresh requisition in strict accordance with the provisions of the Panchayat Act. 4. By the present writ petition, the petitioner projects that pursuant to the disposal of the earlier writ petition, eight members of the Goan Panchayat submitted an application to the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 1.12.2015 for holding a special meeting to move a no-confidence motion against him. Thereafter, on 3.12.2015, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat wrote to him stating that on 1.12.2015, the Vice President and seven other members of the Panchayat submitted a requisition for holding a special meeting to move a no-confidence motion against him in the office of Mancachar Anchalik Panchayat and for which his permission and approval was being sought. The petitioner however did not receive the communcaiton dated 3.12.2015 or the communication dated 1.12.2015 and he came to learn about the same on 31.12.2015 from a person working in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer(Civil), South Salmara, Mancachar Sub Division, Hatisingimari. He then submitted his representation to the Sub-Divisonal Officer(Civil) requesting him to stay the scheduled meeting for deliberating the no-confidence motion against him. 5. However, the meeting was held as scheduled on 2.1.2016 wherein eight members of the Gaon Panchayat voted in favour of the no-confidence motion. In consequence thereof, the petitioner has been ousted from the post of the President of the Gaon Panchayat and that is how he is again before this Court through the instant writ petition. 6. Appearing for the writ petitioner, the learned Senior counsel Mr. In consequence thereof, the petitioner has been ousted from the post of the President of the Gaon Panchayat and that is how he is again before this Court through the instant writ petition. 6. Appearing for the writ petitioner, the learned Senior counsel Mr. K.N. Choudhury submits that by the aforesaid action, the respondents concerned have clearly flouted the provision of the Panchayat Act, more particularly, Section 15(1) of the Panchayat Act. He submits that when the first requisition for no-confidence motion was made on 1.12.2015 by the requisitionists, another requisition could not have made before the Anchalik Panchayat before the expiry of the mandatory 15 days from the date of the notice. The Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat as per the relevant provision can only refer the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat if such special meeting to consider a no-confidence motion is not convened within the stipulated period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. He submits that in fact this Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner had observed in clear terms that fresh requisition seeking the vote of no-confidence would be made in strict compliance with the provision of the Panchayat Act. Therefore, the meeting minutes dated 2.1.2016 by which he has been voted out of his post is unsustainable. 7. The learned Senior counsel further submits that notice of no-confidence motion received by the Gaon Panchahyat Secretary on behalf of the President cannot be construed as a notice to the President and the period of 15 days as contemplated by Section15(1) of the Panchayat Act has to be counted only from the date of bringing the notice to the personal knowledge of the President formally and not otherwise. That it is only when the President has failed to convene a special meeting within a period of 15 days that the Gaon Panchayat Secretary would be required to refer his matter to the Anchalik Panchayat for convening a special meeting. He submits that a bare perusal of the communication dated 3.12.2015 would show that the requisitionist much before the expiry of the 15 days mandatory period had taken the recourse of approaching the Anchalik Gaon Panchayat and therefore the impugned meeting minutes dated 2.1.2016 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and quashed. He submits that a bare perusal of the communication dated 3.12.2015 would show that the requisitionist much before the expiry of the 15 days mandatory period had taken the recourse of approaching the Anchalik Gaon Panchayat and therefore the impugned meeting minutes dated 2.1.2016 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and quashed. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior counsel relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nizamuddin Mazumdar -Vs- State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2012 (3) GLT 731. 8. Appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, the learned State counsel Ms. D.D. Barman while producing the records of the case submits that the petitioner was served with a copy of the notice dated 1.12.2015 as a copy of the same was marked to him. The Secretary of the Gaon Panchaat formally prepared a note on the note-sheet and placed the same before the petitioner. However, the petitioner refused to give his endorsement to the proposal. The Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat again on 3.12.2015 sent a communication to the petitioner informing him about the submission of requisition by the Vice-President and seven other members of the Goan Panchayat for conducting a meeting to move a no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Petitioner however again refused to accept the notice. Thereafter, as meeting could not be convened within the stipulated 15 days, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat wrote to the President of Mancachar Anchalik Parishad on 18.12.2015 informing him about the matter with a request to hold the special meeting for moving a no-confidence motion against the petitioner. However, again the President of the Anchalik Parishad failed to convene a meeting and therefore the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 28.12.2015 wrote to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), South Salmara, Mancachar, Hatishingimari informing him about the matter with a request to convene a meeting. Consequently, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) convened the meeting on 2.1.2016 whereby eight members of the Gaon Panchaytat voted in favour of the no-confidence motion against the writ petitioner. The learned State counsel therefore submits that there is no illegality committed in convening the meeting and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Appearing for the respondent Nos. 7 to 14, the learned counsel Mr. The learned State counsel therefore submits that there is no illegality committed in convening the meeting and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Appearing for the respondent Nos. 7 to 14, the learned counsel Mr. M. Choudhury by relying upon the affidavit filed on 1.2.2016 submits that notice was indeed sent to the writ petitioner on 1.12.2015, 11.12.2015 and again on 19.12.2015. But however, the petitioner refused to accept the notice. He further submits that the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat formally prepared a note on the office note-sheet about the requisition submitted by the eight members of the Gaon Panchayat for convening special meeting for moving the vote of no-confidence. Although the office note was put up before the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner refused to make any endorsement for convening the special meeting. Under such circumstances, the Secretary of the Panchyat did not have any option but to refer the matter to the Anchalik Panchyat to convene the meeting. The President of the Anchalik Panchayat however inspite of the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat’s letter dated 18.12.2015 having failed to convene the special meeting, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat wrote to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) on 28.12.2015 and in consequence thereof, the meeting was convened on 2.1.2016 whereby eight members of the Gaon Panchayat voted in favour of the no-confidence motion. Such being the case, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the meeting minutes dated 2.1.2015. 10. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties, and have perused the materials placed on records. Also perused the records produced by the leaned State Counsel. From the records, it can be seen that the Vice-President and seven other members of the Gaon Panchayat submitted a requisition to the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 1.12.2015 for holding a meeting to move the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. A copy of the said communication was also marked to the petition. The President of the Anchalik Parishad as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) amongst others. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat prepared a formal note on the subject for placing the same before the petitioner for his approval and permission. However, the petitioner having not responded to the proposal, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 3.12.2015 wrote another letter to the President of the Gaon Panchayat seeking his permission and approval. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat prepared a formal note on the subject for placing the same before the petitioner for his approval and permission. However, the petitioner having not responded to the proposal, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 3.12.2015 wrote another letter to the President of the Gaon Panchayat seeking his permission and approval. In addition, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 11.12.2015 sent a letter to the petitioner through registered post for holding the meeting but the said letter came back to the sender with a remark that the addressee was out of station. The Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat thereafter on 18.12.2015 referred the matter to the President of the Anchalik Parishad which again was not acted upon by the President of the Anchalik Parishad. 11. Consequently, the Gaon Panchayat Secretary on 28.12.2015 wrote to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) apprising him about the facts and circumstances under which the meeting for no-confidence motion could not be convened with a request for convening the same at his level. Thereafter the meeting for moving the no-confidence motion was held finally on 2.1.2016 wherein eight members of the Panchayat voted in favour of the no-confidence motion. 12. The learned Senior counsel Mr. K.N. Choudhury has restricted his argument solely on the communication dated 3.12.2015. It is not disputed by the rival parties that an application was submitted on 1.12.2015 seeking for a special meeting on no confidence against the petitioner. The said communication was addressed to the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat with a copy marked to the petition as well amongst others. Although the same was sent to the petitioner, the petitioner refused to accept delivery of the same. Therefore the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 3.12.2015 communicated the submission of the application dated 1.12.2015 to the petitioner while formally preparing a note on 2.12.2015 in the note-sheet to be put up before the petitioner. The petitioner not only refused to accept the communication dated 3.12.2015 but also declined to make any endorsement to the note sheet prepared by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner not only refused to accept the communication dated 3.12.2015 but also declined to make any endorsement to the note sheet prepared by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. It can also be well appreciated that the writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6607 of 2015 whereby it was after due consent given by him that the Court had directed the respondents concerned to initiate fresh steps for making a requisition in term of the Panchayat Act. 13. A perusal of the communication dated 3.12.2015 would also indicate that the requisition dated 1.12.2015 have reached the Anchalik Panchayat since a copy of the said application was marked to it. Merely because a copy was given to the Anchalik Panchayat besides the others, the communication dated 3.12.2015 cannot be understood to be a recourse taken after the President of the Gaon Panchayat has failed to convene the special meeting for seeking a vote of no-confidence. It may also be noticed that although the petitioner has not translated the later part of the requisition dated 1.12.2015 (Annexure-I) a copy of the same was also marked to the petitioner besides others. Nevertheless, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on his part again forwarded the requisition dated 1.12.2015 to the petitioner by the aforesaid communication dated 3.12.2015. 14. From the materials available in the case record as well as in the records produced by the ld. State counsel, it can be seen that the writ petitioner refused to acknowledge and receive a copy of the requisition dated 1.12.2015 which was sent to him on the same day and it came back to the sender with a remark from the postal service as “refused sd/- 3.12.2015”, “out of station sd/- 4.12.2015”, “out of station sd/- 7.12.2015” and “refused and returned to sender sd/- 10.12.2015.” Similar was the case when the requisition dated 1.12.2015 and its connected papers were again sent to him on 11.12.2015 and 19.12.2015. Under such circumstance and in the absence of any materials to the contrary, one can only draw an adverse inference against the petitioner to the effect that he was fully aware of the requisition and he deliberately wanted to avoid holding of the special meeting to seek the vote of no-confidence against him. Under such circumstance and in the absence of any materials to the contrary, one can only draw an adverse inference against the petitioner to the effect that he was fully aware of the requisition and he deliberately wanted to avoid holding of the special meeting to seek the vote of no-confidence against him. All the more, when the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner ie; W.P.(C) No.6607/2015 on the same subject was disposed with his consent. From what has emerged, I also do not find the case of Nizam Uddin Mazumdar (supra) relied upon by the ld. Senior counsel for the petitioner would come to the petitioner’s rescue. 15. Under the given facts and circumstances, the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. However there shall be no order as to cost.