JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 to 15. 2. The petitioner was elected by the voters of the territorial constituency of Khata Batahgila Zila Parishad constituency of Nalbari Zila Parishad under Section 65 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 as a Member of the Zila Parishad. In the first meeting of the Zila Parishad held on 08.04.2013, the petitioner was elected as the President of the Nalbari Zila Parishad. 3. While the petitioner was continuing as such, out of the 13 numbers of the Members of the Zila Parishad, 11 Members had issued a requisition notice on 20.02.2017, requesting the petitioner to convene a special meeting to discuss and consider a no confidence motion against her. It is stated that the petitioner had received the copy of the aforesaid requisition notice on 20.02.2017 at about 6 p.m. in the Office of the Chief Executive Officer, Nagaon Zila Parishad. It is stated that the petitioner upon receiving the aforesaid notice, had requested the Members to convene an informal meeting so as to discuss the problems that the Members may have with the President. 4. Be that as it may, by another letter dated 27.02.2017, the concerned Members had requested the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari to hold the special meeting of no confidence against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer, Nalbari Zila Parishad by letter dated 28.02.2017 informed the petitioner and the other Members that the special meeting for discussing the no confidence motion would be held on 01.03.2017 at 11 a.m. in the Conference Hall of the Zila Parishad. 5. Pursuant thereto, a no confidence resolution was taken on 01.03.2017, by which the petitioner had been removed from the office of the President of the Nalbari Zila Parishad. The said resolution of removal dated 01.03.2017 has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that the 07(seven) days time available to the petitioner to convene the meeting after the notice of requisition, had not been provided in the instant case. 6. Mr. The said resolution of removal dated 01.03.2017 has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that the 07(seven) days time available to the petitioner to convene the meeting after the notice of requisition, had not been provided in the instant case. 6. Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 73 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, which provides that the notice for a no confidence motion be delivered to the President and the President shall convene the meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. Mr. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the date of receipt of the notice, the President is accordingly entitled to a clear seven days time to convene the meeting. 7. In this respect, Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Piarun Nessa Tapadar –versus- Nizam Uddin Mazumdar and others, reported in (2013) 4 GLR 762, wherein in paragraph-7, it had been held that while calculating the time period available to a President for convening a meeting, the first date, on which the notice was issued, would have to be excluded. 8. By considering the aforesaid provision of law, it is the submission of Mr. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner that the President having received the no confidence requisition notice on 20.02.2017, the seven days period count would start from the next date i.e. 21.02.2017 and accordingly, the petitioner would have time up to 27.02.2017 to convene the meeting. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the date on which the requisition notice was issued i.e. 20.02.2017 would have to be excluded as per the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision. Accordingly, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Members in the aforesaid could not have referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for convening the meeting on 27.02.2017 inasmuch as, up to 27.02.2017, the petitioner had the time period to convene the meeting. 9. Mr. Accordingly, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Members in the aforesaid could not have referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for convening the meeting on 27.02.2017 inasmuch as, up to 27.02.2017, the petitioner had the time period to convene the meeting. 9. Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate on the other hand submits that the original record is available and from the record it can be seen that the requisition notice was given on 20.02.2017 and upon the President having not convened the meeting, the Members had made a reference to the Deputy Commissioner on 27.02.2017. 10. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 to 15, fairly submits that in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner is entitled for a period of seven days from the date of issuance of the requisition notice i.e. up to 27.02.2017 to convene the meeting and therefore, the act of the Members in referring the matter to the Deputy Commissioner on 27.02.2017 itself would not be sustainable. Accordingly, the consequential event of the Deputy Commissioner fixing the meeting on 01.03.2017 and also holding of the meeting on 01.03.2017 would also be vitiated. In such view of the matter, the no confidence resolution taken against the petitioner on 01.03.2017 is accordingly set aside. 11. However, it is made clear that the said resolution of the petitioner is being set aside on the reason that the procedural requirement of holding the meeting was not followed and it is not the case that the Members have lost the no confidence motion moved against the petitioner. In such view of the matter, the Members would now be at liberty to give a fresh requisition to the petitioner. At this stage, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel refers to a decision of this Court rendered in Forhana Begum Laskar –versus- State of Assam and others, reported in 2009 (3) GLT 575, wherein in paragraph 27, it had been provided that all concerned are left at liberty to pursue the issue of no confidence against the concerned President from the stage of receipt of the requisition. 12. 12. Although, the Full Bench of this Court had provided that the members would be at liberty to pursue with the issue of no confidence from the stage of receipt of the notice of requisition, but Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same would lead to complication and as such, it is more desirable that the Members issue a fresh requisition notice against the President and accordingly Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner also ensures that on the fresh requisition notice for no confidence being issued, the President/petitioner would accept the same and would not avoid receiving notice. 13. It is needless to say that on the resolution of removal being set aside and also in view of the earlier interim order of this Court keeping the same on abeyance, it is deemed appropriate that the petitioner be reinstated as the President of the Zila Parishad immediately. The said reinstatement is further required in order to enable the petitioner/President to carry out the duty of convening the meeting on the fresh requisition being issued. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.