JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R Dubey, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Mr. C K S Baruah, the learned State counsel, who appears for the State respondents and Mr. N Haque, the learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the elected President of Bhatirkupa Gaon Panchayat in Hailakandi within the territorial limits of Hailakandi Anchalik Panchayat. On 16.09.2014, 7 members of the Gaon Panchayat concerned submitted an application to the Secretary of the Gaon Pachayat for holding a special meeting for discussion on the no confidence motion against the petitioner (Annexure-3). The said application was communicated by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to the petitioner on the same day (Annexure-4). However, since the special meeting could not be convened within the prescribed 15 days period as per Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereafter the Panchayat Act, for short), the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat referred the matter to the President, Hailakandi Anchalik Panchayat vide communication dated 07.10.2014 (Annexure-5). Accordingly, a meeting notice was issued by the Secretary & Executive Officer of Hailakandi Anchalik Panchayat on 13.10.2014 (Annexure-6) fixing 22.10.2014 as the date for the special meeting on the no confidence motion. 3. On 22.10.2014, when the special meeting was held, a resolution was passed in which it was recorded that one of the member of the Panchayat (respondent No. 14) had tendered his resignation while the said member denied having submitted such resignation, the matter along with the documents relating to no confidence motion was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi through the Block Development Officer (BDO). As was resolved, the BDO forwarded a copy of the meeting minutes to the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi on 22.10.2014 (Annexure-8). 4. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi vide notice dated 03.11.2014 (Annexure-9) convened a special meeting on the no confidence motion on 07.11.2014. When the special meeting was held on 07.11.2014, 8 members, who were present in the meeting voted in favour of the no confidence motion (Annexure-10). 5. Assailing the meeting minutes dated 07.11.2014, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that as no votes were cast in the meeting held on 22.10.2014 on the no confidence motion submitted by the Gaon Panchayat concerned, the no confidence motion should have been declared to be ‘lost’. 5. Assailing the meeting minutes dated 07.11.2014, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that as no votes were cast in the meeting held on 22.10.2014 on the no confidence motion submitted by the Gaon Panchayat concerned, the no confidence motion should have been declared to be ‘lost’. The Anchalik Panchayat, therefore, could not have referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to test the confidence of the Gaon Panchayat members on the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner in order to substantiate and support his submission has relied upon the full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Forhana Begum Laskar Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in 2009 (3) GLT 575, wherein, it was held that… “the word ‘lost’ appearing in the 2nd proviso to Section 15(1) of the Panchayat Act, in deference to the fundamental principles of statutory interpretation, has to be essentially comprehended in the text and the context in which it appears. When so construed and interpreted, it, to start with, seems to signify a rejection of a No Confidence Motion on merits following due deliberations in a meeting convened and held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 15(1). It cannot be conceived of as an inevitable consequence of any infringement of the prescribed procedural rigour either by a breach of the time frame or unwarranted interference of any authority at any stage of the process or reasons akin thereto”. 7. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner further relies upon the decision rendered by a single Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Kuddus (Md.) and Others Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in 2014 (4) GLT 625 to bring home his argument that since no resolution was adopted and passed on the no confidence motion against the petitioner in the meeting held on 22.10.2014, the no confidence motion is to be ultimately called off and held to be ‘lost’ by necessary implication. He, therefore, submits that under the circumstance, the meeting minutes dated 07.11.2014 by which the petitioner was voted out from her post is unsustainable and should be set aside and quashed. 8. The learned State counsel, Mr. He, therefore, submits that under the circumstance, the meeting minutes dated 07.11.2014 by which the petitioner was voted out from her post is unsustainable and should be set aside and quashed. 8. The learned State counsel, Mr. C K S Baruah, submits that there is nothing wrong in the resolution dated 22.10.2014, wherein, it was resolved to refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, inasmuch as, the meeting for no confidence motion was disrupted by the controversy created by the petitioner herself that one of the member of the Gaon Panchayat, i.e., respondent No. 14 had tendered his resignation. On being referred to the Deputy Commissioner, he convened a special meeting to consider the no confidence motion on 17.11.2014, whereby, the members present unanimously voted in favour of the no confidence motion and against the petitioner. He further submits that the case of Abdul Kuddus (Md.) (Supra) relied upon by the writ petitioner is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in that case, certain queries were put to the president of the Gaon Panchayat, who gave satisfactory answers. Therefore, the members present in the meeting having expressed their satisfaction, there was no occasion for convening another special meeting. 9. In the instant case, according to the ld. State counsel, the facts are different inasmuch as the no confidence motion could not be moved for want of examination of the resignation tendered by one of the member of the Gaon Panchayat. Therefore, under the circumstances, the meeting minutes dated 07.11.2014 should be upheld. 10. Appearing for the private respondents, the ld. Counsel Mr. N Haque, adopts the argument of the ld. State counsel and submits that the no confidence motion meeting held on 22.10.2014 having been disrupted by the President by creating a controversy, the matter had to be referred to the Deputy Commissioner, who in turn convened the no confidence motion meeting on 07.11.2014. In consequence thereof, the members present voted in favour of the no confidence motion and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the respondents. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the rival parties as well as perused the materials available on record including the records produced by the ld. State counsel. 12. In consequence thereof, the members present voted in favour of the no confidence motion and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the respondents. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the rival parties as well as perused the materials available on record including the records produced by the ld. State counsel. 12. It is not in dispute that a requisition for seeking a no confidence motion against the writ petitioner was submitted on 16.09.2014 by 7 members of the Gaon Panchayat but since the petitioner failed to convene the special meeting within the prescribed time, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat referred the matter to the President, Hailakandi Anchalik Panchayat on 07.04.2017 and pursuant to which the Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat issued a notice on 13.10.2014 fixing 22.10.2014 as a date for having the meeting for the no confidence motion. However, during the proceeding of the meeting on 22.10.2014, the issue of resignation by one of the member of the Panchayat, i.e., respondent No. 14 was debated upon and therefore, the matter was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi through the BDO. The Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi thereafter convened a special meeting for the no confidence motion on 07.11.2014 by issuing a notice on 03.11.2014. In the meeting that was held on 07.11.2014, 8 members who were present in the meeting voted in favour of the no confidence motion dislodging the petitioner from the post of President of the Gaon Panchayat. 13. The records of the case reveal that on 10.10.2014, the petitioner gave a legal notice under Section 80 of the CPC through her lawyer to the respondent Nos. 2 to 14 including the Director, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development to withdraw the requisition made on 16.09.2014 for having a meeting on the no confidence motion. It was also stated that the respondent No. 14 had submitted his resignation on 26.08.2014. 14. The records also further reveal that the petitioner filed Title Suit No.125/2014 before the Court of Munsiff No. 2, Hailakandi against the no confidence motion meeting held on 07.11.2014 convened by the Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi. It was also stated that the respondent No. 14 had submitted his resignation on 26.08.2014. 14. The records also further reveal that the petitioner filed Title Suit No.125/2014 before the Court of Munsiff No. 2, Hailakandi against the no confidence motion meeting held on 07.11.2014 convened by the Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi. As regard the Title Suit, it may be noticed that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has stated that since ad-interim injunction wasnot granted by the Court of Munsiff, the same has been rendered infructuous and the petitioner is taking necessary steps for withdrawal of the case from the Court of the Munsiff. 15. The respondent No.13 on 28.03.2016 filed his affidavit which was to the effect that he have no role to play in the ousting of the petitioner from the post of President of the Gaon Panchayat, although, he participated in the meeting held on 07.11.2014 convened by the Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi for moving the no confidence motion. A perusal of the case record reveals that the respondent No.13 was not only one of the participating members in the meeting held on 07.11.2014 but he had also cast his vote in favour of the no confidence motion. Therefore, the stand of the said respondent in his affidavit is only misconceived and cannot be accepted. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to impress upon the Court that the no confidence motion was lost on account of the meeting held on 22.10.2014 as convened by the Anchalik Panchayat in arriving into a decision either in favour or against the no confidence motion cannot be accepted. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Forhana Begum Laskar (Supra) and Abdul Kuddus (Md.) (Supra), I find that the aforesaid decisions are quite distinguishable from the instant case and do not apply to the case of the petitioner. In the case of Forhana Begum Laskar (Supra), it has been observed by this Court that while interpreting and construing the word ‘lost’, it should seem to signify a rejection of the no confidence motion on merits after following due deliberation in the meeting convened and held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 15(1) of the Panchayat Act. 17. 17. In the instant case, the meeting convened by the Anchalik Panchayat on 22.10.2014 was disrupted by the petitioner by claiming that the respondent No.14 had tendered his resignation from being a member of the Gaon Panchayat and which otherwise was totally denied by the respondent No.14. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the no confidence motion was deliberated on merits and as a result the same was ‘lost’. 18. Furthermore, Section 16 of the Panchayat Act provides that a member of the Gaon Panchayat may resign from being a member by submitting his resignation in writing under his hand addressed to the President of the Gaon Panchayat. However, in the instant case, as can be seen from the records, the resignation letter dated 26.08.2014 was not handwritten but a typed copy. The Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat also clearly indicated in the body of the resignation letter that since the resignation letter was not handwritten in terms of Section 16 of the Panchayat Act, the same should not be acted upon. The respondent No. 14 while denying submission of the resignation letter on 26.08.2014 also informed the Block Development Officer of Hailakandi vide his letter dated 09.10.2014 that the resignation letter dated 26.08.2014 was only false since he never submitted such resignation letter. Such being the case, there is no reason for coming to a conclusion that the no confidence motion was ‘lost’. 19. With regard to the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Abdul Kuddus (Md.) (Supra) as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner to hold that the no confidence motion was lost, in my considered opinion, is not applicable to the instant case as the facts are not similar. In that case, the explanation given by the President/Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat was found to be acceptable and therefore, as the members of the Gaon Panchayat decided not to proceed with the no confidence motion, the no confidence motion was held to be ‘lost’. However, in the instant case merely just because the meeting minutes of 22.10.2014 concluded with a decision to apprise the Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi about the claim of the petitioner that the respondent No. 14 tendered his resignation, the no confidence motion cannot be said to have been ‘lost’. 20. However, in the instant case merely just because the meeting minutes of 22.10.2014 concluded with a decision to apprise the Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi about the claim of the petitioner that the respondent No. 14 tendered his resignation, the no confidence motion cannot be said to have been ‘lost’. 20. Under the given facts and circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the meeting minutes dated 07.11.2014 by which 8 members of the Gaon Panchayat voted in favour of the no confidence motion when the special meeting was convened by the Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi. The writ petition therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.