JUDGMENT : The writ petitioner has approached this Court by the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia[a] assailing a notice dated 10.12.2020 submitted by 8 [eight] Ward Members of 88 No. Baghbar Gaon Panchayat seeking requisition of a special meeting to discuss a motion of no confidence against the petitioner; [b] seeking setting aside of a letter dated 28.12.2020 issued by the Secretary, 88 No. Baghbar Gaon Panchayat whereby the matter regarding requisitioning of a special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence was referred to the President, Mandia Anchalik Panchayat; and [c] seeking setting aside of a resolution adopted in a special meeting held on 02.01.2021 wherein the motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioner. 2. The facts which are not in dispute can be stated as follows : In the General Panchayat Election, the petitioner was directly elected as the President of 88 No. Baghbar Gaon Panchayat. On 10.12.2020, a requisition was submitted by 8 nos. of Ward Members of 88 No. Baghbar Gaon Panchayat before the Secretary, 88 No. Baghbar Gaon Panchayat asking him to convene a special meeting to discuss a motion of no confidence against the President i.e. the petitioner. 2.1. On 14.12.2020, the Secretary, 88 No. Baghbar Gaon Panchayat wrote to the President, Mandia Anchalik Panchayat whereby he informed about submission of the letter by 8 nos. of Ward Members of 88 No. Baghbar Gaon Panchayat expressing want of confidence against the petitioner. By the said letter dated 28.12.2020, the Secretary, 88 No. Baghbar Gaon Panchayat requested the President, Mandia Anchalik Panchayat to convene a special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence on the ground that the petitioner did not accord her approval to convene the special meeting. 2.2. On receipt of the said letter dated 28.12.2020 from the Secretary, 88 No. Baghbar Gaon Panchayat, the Executive Officer of the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat issued notices dated 30.12.2020 to all concerned stakeholders informing that a special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence against the petitioner had been convened on 02.01.2021. 2.3. Pursuant to the said notice dated 30.12.2020, the special meeting was held on 02.01.2021 and the said meeting was presided over by the President, Mandia Anchalik Panchayat. 2.3. Pursuant to the said notice dated 30.12.2020, the special meeting was held on 02.01.2021 and the said meeting was presided over by the President, Mandia Anchalik Panchayat. The process of voting through secret ballot was adopted in the special meeting and after counting, a resolution had been passed whereby the motion of no confidence against the petitioner was held to have been passed by two-third majority. 3. There is some dispute in respect of the events occurring between 10.12.2020 and 14.12.2020 which will be referred to in the subsequent part of the order. 4. I have heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development [P&RD] Department for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 & 6; Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 2; and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7-14. 5. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has advanced his submissions on three issues. His first submission is that the letter submitted before the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 10.12.2020 by 8 [eight] nos. of Ward Members seeking to discuss the motion of no confidence against the petitioner in a special meeting was never placed before the petitioner seeking her approval. Without placing the matter through the official channel before the petitioner, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had referred the matter to the President, Mandia Anchalik Panchayat on 28.12.2020. Such action on the part of the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. Even if it is assumed that the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had placed the notice dated 10.12.2020 through official channel on 14.12.2020, as had been claimed by him in the letter dated 28.12.2020, then also the Secretary could not have forwarded the matter before expiry of 15 [fifteen] days from 14.12.2020. Mr. Mahanta has further submitted that the notice issued by the Executive Officer, Mandia Anchalik Panchayat on 30.12.2020 was unauthorized as he had no authority and jurisdiction to convene a special meeting. Mr. Mahanta has further submitted that the notice issued by the Executive Officer, Mandia Anchalik Panchayat on 30.12.2020 was unauthorized as he had no authority and jurisdiction to convene a special meeting. He has further submitted that it is the President of the Anchalik Panchayat who only can, in such a situation, convene the special meeting to discuss a motion of no confidence against a President of a Gaon Panchayat. It is also his contention that the notice dated 30.12.2020 was in violation of the statutory provision contained in sub-section [3] of Section 17 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 as it prescribes for 3 [three] clear days notice in case a special meeting is convened. To buttress his submissions, Mr. Mahanta has referred to the Division Bench decisions in Ali Ahmed Mazumdar vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2011 [3] GLT 396 and Writ Appeal no. 189/2021 [Hafizur Rahman vs. State of Assam and 15 others], decided on 17.12.2021. 6. Mr. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department has submitted that the notice requisitioning a special meeting submitted by the 8 [eight] nos. of Ward Members was received by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on 10.12.2020 and the same was placed before the petitioner on 11.12.2020. Though the petitioner received the same, she did not acknowledge the receipt of the same under her signature. Mr. Roy has also referred to the letter dated 28.12.2020 of the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to contend that the matter was placed before the petitioner also on 14.12.2020 and when the petitioner did not accord her approval to convene the special meeting, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had to refer the matter to the President, Mandia Anchalik Panchayat on 28.12.2020. Mr. Roy has further submitted that most of the relevant records could not be obtained by him as it was informed to him that those were destructed due to flood and whatever is available in the office of the Gaon Panchayat has been obtained by him. 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 7 to 14 has submitted that the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat after receipt of the letter dated 10.12.2020, had immediately brought the same to the notice of the President i.e. the petitioner on 11.12.2020. When the petitioner did not acknowledge the letter submitted by the 8 [eight] nos. 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 7 to 14 has submitted that the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat after receipt of the letter dated 10.12.2020, had immediately brought the same to the notice of the President i.e. the petitioner on 11.12.2020. When the petitioner did not acknowledge the letter submitted by the 8 [eight] nos. of Ward Members, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had recorded the said fact in presence of 2 [two] nos. of witnesses. As the fact that a special meeting had been sought to be convened by 8 [eight] nos. of Ward Members which is more than two-third majority, there was no prejudice caused to the petitioner because of her such knowledge and in such eventuality, the provisions contained in Section 15 and Section 17 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1944 as regards the time period have to be treated as directory. In support of his submissions, he has referred to the decision in Ranjit Singh vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2012 [2] GLT 106 and Mumtaz Rana Laskar and others vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2006 [1] GLT 46. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 9. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the present writ petition was heard on 05.03.2021. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on 05.03.2021, the resolution dated 02.01.2021 taken in the special meeting in respect of the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner was set aside and quashed. The said Order dated 05.03.2021 was assailed before the Division Bench in a writ appeal, Writ Appeal no. 146/2021 by the private respondents. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Division Bench by Order dated 12.08.2021 interfered with the Order dated 05.03.2021 and the matter was remanded back for hearing again. It was observed in the Order dated 12.08.2021 that status quo shall be maintained but the petitioner as the President of 88 No. Baghbar Gaon Panchayat shall not take any major administrative or financial decision except running day to day affairs of the Panchayat. It was observed in the Order dated 12.08.2021 that status quo shall be maintained but the petitioner as the President of 88 No. Baghbar Gaon Panchayat shall not take any major administrative or financial decision except running day to day affairs of the Panchayat. In the writ appeal, it was contended on behalf of the writ appellants that there was existence of a letter dated 10.12.2020 of the Secretary of the 88 No. Baghbar Gaon Panchayat wherein it was endorsed that the notice requisitioning special meeting to discuss no confidence motion was received by the President but she did not sign the same. 10. Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1944 has inter alia provided for the procedure for passing no confidence motion against the President of a Gaon Panchayat as well as against the Vice President of a Gaon Panchayat. It has been laid down therein that every President or Vice President shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith when a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of two-third of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat. As per the procedure laid down therein, such a meeting shall be specially convened by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat with approval of the President of the Gaon Panchayat. If the motion is against the President of the Gaon Panchayat then such a meeting shall be presided over by the Vice President of the Gaon Panchayat. In case such a meeting is not convened within a period of 15 [fifteen] days fromthe date of receipt of notice, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat within 3 [three] days thereafter, shall refer the matter to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat, who shall convene the meeting within 7 [seven] days from the date of receipt of the information from the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and preside over such special meeting. 10.1. It has been laid down in sub-section [3] of Section 17 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 that there should be three clear days notice in respect of a special meeting specifying the place, date and time of such meeting. 11. 10.1. It has been laid down in sub-section [3] of Section 17 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 that there should be three clear days notice in respect of a special meeting specifying the place, date and time of such meeting. 11. The prime bone of contention of the parties herein is with regard to the date from which the period of 15 [fifteen] days shall be counted to authorize the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to refer the matter to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat. 12. The State respondents have failed to place before the Court the original records relating to the motion of no confidence, save and except one page in original. According to the learned Standing Counsel, P&RD, the said page is a part of the notesheets of the relevant file. On perusal, it is noticed that the said page is without any pagination and does not indicate that the page was a part of any official file maintained in a proper manner. In such view of the matter, it is difficult to take any cognizance of the lone page produced by the official respondents in the name of official records. 13. A perusal of the letter dated 28.12.2020 of the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, addressed to the President of the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat, goes to show that the Secretary stated to have received the notice from 8 [eight] nos. of Ward Members on 10.12.2020 and thereafter, he had placed the same on 14.12.2020 before the President i.e. the petitioner, seeking her approval to convene the special meeting. On the other hand, the document annexed as Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent nos. 7-14 is a copy of the notice submitted by the respondent nos. 7-14 to the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and it bears an endorsement of the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, dated 11.12.2020, with words, ‘the no confidence motion letter received by the President, but not signed’. It also bears signatures of two persons as witnesses. 7-14 is a copy of the notice submitted by the respondent nos. 7-14 to the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and it bears an endorsement of the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, dated 11.12.2020, with words, ‘the no confidence motion letter received by the President, but not signed’. It also bears signatures of two persons as witnesses. The question that has arisen is whether the statement of the Secretary contained in the letter dated 28.12.2020 is to be taken into consideration or it is the endorsement, quoted above, dated 11.12.2020, appearing in the body of the photocopy of the notice dated 10.12.2020, is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of counting the 15 days’ time period given to the President of the Gaon Panchayat to accord her approval for convening the special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence against her. 14. The manner in which such a notice is to be brought before the President of a Gaon Panchayat has been deliberated upon by a Division Bench of this Court in Ali Ahmed Mazumdar[supra]. In that case, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat received a notice on behalf of the President to convene a special meeting on 12.07.2008 and the notice for no confidence motion was put up before the President on 21.07.2008. The President accorded his approval on 25.07.2008. The Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat instead of convening the special meeting as per the approval given by the President of the Gaon Panchayat, referred the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat. In that context, the Division Bench in Ali Ahmed Mazumdar[supra] has observed as under : “[9] The question involved in this case is whether the receipt of notice of no confidence motion by the G.P. Secretary on behalf of the President could be construed as due service upon the President from the date of receipt of notice by the G.P. Secretary. The simple dictionary meaning of the word ‘receipt’ is a written acknowledgment of anything received. So also the word ‘notice’ means bringing it to a person’s knowledge. So, receipt of a notice would mean acknowledgement of receipt of the written notice issued. One may therefore, argue that knowledge includes both actual awareness and constructive knowledge. The simple dictionary meaning of the word ‘receipt’ is a written acknowledgment of anything received. So also the word ‘notice’ means bringing it to a person’s knowledge. So, receipt of a notice would mean acknowledgement of receipt of the written notice issued. One may therefore, argue that knowledge includes both actual awareness and constructive knowledge. One may further argue that since the appellant had constructive knowledge about no confidence notice, it is enough for him to take necessary steps in compliance to Section 15[1] of the Act. This argument, in our view, may sound very sound but it is not acceptable at all, because a notice issued by the Panchayat members contains serious allegation against the appellant President which he has to meet and if he fails to satisfy the members and fails to succeed, he would stand removed from office. So justice demands physical and direct service of notice upon the President or Vice President in whom the members have lost confidence and want to remove him from office. [10] What actually had happened has already been noted earlier. The necessity of bringing the notice of no confidence motion to the personal knowledge of the President or Vice President has also been discussed. It must be noted that the G.P. Secretary who received the notice on behalf of the President is cast with a legal duty, which is mandatory in nature, to inform the President forthwith about the receipt of such notice with a note put up in official file for his personal knowledge and pass necessary order either according or declining to accord approval to convene the special meeting for discussion on the no confidence motion by the Panchayat Members. Because of the extremely possible disastrous consequence, like removal from office attached to the no confidence motion preceded by compliance of certain statutory procedures as laid down in Section 15 of the Act, we hold that the notice of no confidence motion received by the G.P. Secretary on behalf of the G.P. President, cannot be construed as due notice to the President and the period of 15 days as contemplated U/s 15 [1] of the Act could be counted only from the date of bringing the notice to personal knowledge of the President formally through official note, and not otherwise. The reason is quite obvious. The reason is quite obvious. A dishonest Panchayat Secretary, for dubious purpose or on extraneous consideration to serve some vested interest, may play mischief by holding back the notice from the President or Vice President against whom the Panchayat members have expressed loss of confidence, to create a situation for it and to show/prove that the President or Vice President has failed to convene the special meeting within 15 days as prescribed U/s 15 [1] and make out a case for referring the matter to Anchalik Panchayat to convene a special meeting by it.” 15. In Ali Ahmed Mazumdar[supra], it has been laid down that receipt of a notice of no confidence motion by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat on behalf of the President of the Gaon Panchayat cannot be construed as due notice to the President and the period of 15 [fifteen] days contemplated under Section 15 [1] of the Assam Panchayat Act would be counted only from the date of bringing the notice to personal knowledge of the President of the Gaon Panchayat formally through official note in official file and not otherwise. A look at the endorsement dated 11.12.2020 of the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat appearing in the notice dated 10.12.2020, appended as Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent nos. 7-14, does not go to indicate that the same was brought to the notice of the President i.e. the petitioner through any official channel or through any official file. It is apposite to mention that when the writ petition was heard on 05.03.2021, the private respondents therein did not make any reference to the said document. It was only argued that the petitioner had due knowledge of the notice. The contents of the letter dated 28.12.2020 of the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat also go to belie the endorsement dated 11.12.2020. In his letter dated 28.12.2020 whereby the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had referred the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat, the Secretary had mentioned in specific terms that after receipt of the notice dated 10.12.2020 from the 8 [eight] nos. of Ward Members, he placed the same before the President of the Gaon Panchayat on 14.12.2020 seeking her approval to convene the special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence against her. of Ward Members, he placed the same before the President of the Gaon Panchayat on 14.12.2020 seeking her approval to convene the special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence against her. Thus, in absence of any cogent materials to indicate that the notice was placed before the President on 11.12.2020 through official channel/file, as projected by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and as alleged by the private respondents herein, the same cannot be taken as the date for the purpose of counting 15 [fifteen] days to authorize the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to refer the matter to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat. As the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat had himself acknowledged the fact that he had placed the notice before the President of the Gaon Panchayat on 14.12.2020, it is the date, 14.12.2020 which has to be taken as the starting date for the purpose of counting 15 [fifteen] days to authorize the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to refer the matter to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat to convene the special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence. As the matter of no confidence is likely to be visited with serious consequences, the provision, as has been held by the Division Bench in Ali Ahmed Mazumdar [supra], requires strict interpretation. Notwithstanding the contention of the petitioner that the notice dated 10.12.2020 was placed before him, when 14.12.2020 is taken as the starting date for the purpose of counting 15 [fifteen] days then it is found that the period of 15 [fifteen] days would have expired on 29.12.2020 only. In such view of the matter, the reference made by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat in the case in hand on 28.12.2020 to the President, Mandia Anchalik Panchayat to convene the special meeting is found to be without authority and jurisdiction. The Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat could have got the authority and jurisdiction to refer the matter to the President of the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat only after 29.12.2020 and not before that. Accordingly, I find force in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the first issue. 16. The Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat could have got the authority and jurisdiction to refer the matter to the President of the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat only after 29.12.2020 and not before that. Accordingly, I find force in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the first issue. 16. The second issue that has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Executive Officer of Mandia Anchalik Panchayat could not have issued the notices on 30.12.2020 informing the concerned stakeholders that the special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence had been convened on 02.01.2021. As per the contents of the notice dated 30.12.2020, it was as per the written direction of the Anchalik Panchayat, the special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence had been convened and would be held on 02.01.2021. It did not in specific manner had mentioned that the written direction was of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat. The learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department has not been able to show from the records in what manner the written direction was given by the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat. It is no longer resintegrain view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Swapna Sen vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2006 [2] GLT 14, that once the President of the Anchalik Panchayat passes an order convening the meeting, the requirement of Section 15 [1] can be accepted to be complied with and the mere fact of the Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat, after such order of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat, signing the notice informing the Gaon Panchayat about the date fixed for holding such special meeting, in exercise of his ministerial duty, would not amount to convening the meeting by the Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat. In the case in hand, in view of the failure on the part of the learned Standing Counsel for the P&RD Department to produce the original records indicating that it was the President of the Anchalik Panchayat who had passed an order in writing to convene the special meeting on 02.01.2021, it is not possible for this Court to arrive at a definite finding on the second point urged by the learned counsel for the parties. 17. 17. Sub-section [3] of Section 17 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 contains the statutory prescription of 3 [three] clear days notice in case a special meeting is convened. Sub-section [1] of Section 15 has clearly prescribed that a motion of no confidence against the President of a Gaon Panchayat has to be discussed in a special meeting. The notice issued by the Executive Officer of Mandia Gaon Panchayat on 30.12.2020 had mentioned that the special meeting would be convened on 02.01.2021. Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1887 has prescribed the procedure for counting a time period and a Division Bench of this Court in Musstt Piarun Nessa Tapadar vs. Nizam Uddin Mazumdar, reported in [2013] 4 GLR 762, has with reference to Section 9 of the General Clauses Act 1897, held that the first in a series of days has to be excluded for the purpose of counting a time period prescribed in any statute like the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. If the period of 3 [three] days is counted in that manner, the notice dated 30.12.2020 did not provide for 3 [three] clear days notice. This Court fully subscribes to such view and, as such, holds that the notice dated 30.12.2020 stands in violation of the statutory prescription contained in sub-section [3] of Section 17 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. The Division Bench in Hafizur Rahman[supra] has observed that Section 17 [3] of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 has clearly stipulated that in case of any special meeting [which is a meeting for no confidence motion], 3 [three] days’ clear notice has to be given. When such 3 [three] clear days’ notice for a special meeting is not found to be given it has to be held that such notice is in violation of Section 17 [3] of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. 18. The factual matrix in Ranjit Singh [supra] was to the effect that the notice by 10 Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat was submitted before the Secretary on 04.02.2011 and the matter was forwarded by the Secretary to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat on 15.02.2011 and in turn, the President of the Anchalik Panchayat convened the special meeting on 21.02.2011 wherein the resolution expressing want of confidence against the President of the Gaon Panchayat was adopted. In Ranjit Singh [supra], the records revealed that the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat submitted a note dated 05.02.2011 before the President for convening a special meeting to discuss the motion expressing want of confidence against him along with the notice dated 04.02.2011. The records revealed that the President of the Gaon Panchayat refused to receive such notice as well as the note given by the Secretary seeking approval to convene the special meeting of the Gaon Panchayat. In that factual backdrop, it was held that the conduct of the President amounted to refusal to grant approval to the proposal of the Secretary to convene the special meeting and in such situation, it was held that the reference of the matter by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat could not have been held to be in violation of the provision contained in Section 15 [1] of the Assam Panchayat Act. The Court found the stand taken by the President of the Gaon Panchayat i.e. the petitioner therein belied by the available materials on record wherefrom it was clearly established that the notice expressing want of confidence was placed before him on 05.02.2011 along with a note dated 05.02.2011. It was in the context of not causing any prejudice, the decision in Ranjit Singh [supra] was rendered. But in the case in hand, the State respondents, more particularly, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat has failed to produce any reliable material to indicate that he had brought the notice dated 10.12.2020 to the notice of the petitioner through the official channel, in the manner indicated in Ali Ahmed Mazumdar [supra], at any time prior to 14.12.2020. In such view of the matter, the decision in RanjitSingh[supra] is found of no assistance to the case of the respondents. 18.1. It has also been held by the Division Bench in Musstt Piarun Nessa Tapadar [supra] which followed the interpretation given in Ali Ahmed Mazumdar [supra], that the interpretation followed in the Division Bench judgment in Ali Ahmed Mazumdar [supra] had eclipsed the interpretation as provided in Ranjit Singh [supra]. 19. The decision in Mumtaz Rana Laskar[supra] came to be considered by a full bench of this Court in Forhana Begum Laskar vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2009 [3] GLT 575. 19. The decision in Mumtaz Rana Laskar[supra] came to be considered by a full bench of this Court in Forhana Begum Laskar vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2009 [3] GLT 575. In paragraph 24 therein, the full bench has observed in reference to the judgment of Mumtaz Rana Laskar[supra] that by reading between the lines of the decision in Mumtaz Rana Laskar[supra], it did not transpire to the full bench that the view rendered in Mumtaz Rana Laskar [supra] can be construed to denote that the entire scheme of Section 15 in all its essential features had been enunciated to be directory and not mandatory. The observations made by the full bench in that regard are as follows : “[26] Reading between the lines, it does not transpire to us that the above view rendered by the Division Bench can be construed to denote that the entire scheme of Section 15 in all its essential features has been enunciated to be directory and not mandatory. It rather seems to accentuate that each and every departure from the procedure and the time schedule contained therein, however, miniscule would not impair the exercise so as to decisively annihilate the same. In the contextual facts of the present appeal and the contraventions already noticed hereinabove, which we construe to be sufficient to answer the issues presently raised we do not consider it essential to embark on a rescrutiny of this proposition in the instant proceeding.” 19.1. In view of such observations given by the full bench decision in Forhana Begum Laskar[supra], the decision in Mumtaz Rana Laskar and others[supra] is also found to be of no assistance to the case of the respondents. 20. In view of the discussion made above with reasons assigned therein and in the light of the principles emerging from the decisions cited above, this Court is of the unhesitant view that the resolution passed with regard to the motion of no confidence against the petitioner, taken in the special meeting held on 02.01.2021, was preceded by infraction of the mandatory statutory prescriptions contained in Section 15 [1] and Section 17 [3] of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 and hence, is found to be unsustainable in law. Consequently, the same is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the same is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly, set aside. As a corollary, the petitioner shall be allowed to discharge the functions of the President, 88 No. Baghbar Gaon Panchayat as per the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. The writ petition is, thus, allowed with no order as to cost.