JUDGEMENT : The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the proceedings of a special meeting, held on 19.02.2021, wherein a motion of no confidence against the President of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat i.e. the petitioner had allegedly been passed by 2/3rd majority against her and all consequential actions taken thereupon. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 25.06.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby, it has been notified that the office of the President of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat has stood vacated and as a consequence, the Vice-President of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat has been allowed to exercise the powers and perform and discharge all the functions and duties of the President of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat. 2. The case of the petitioner, as has been pleaded in the writ petition, is that in the Panchayat General Election held in the year 2019, the petitioner contested the election for the post of President, Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat, District -Nagaon and she got elected for the said post. 2.1. On 19.01.2021, 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat submitted a requisition in writing, addressed to the respondent no. 8 i.e. the Secretary, Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat, with the request to convene a special meeting to discuss a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. It was on 27.01.2021, the respondent no. 8 gave a written notice to the petitioner informing her about the submission of the written requisition in the office of the Gaon Panchayat expressing want of confidence in the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice dated 16.02.2021 from the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, whereby, it was informed to the petitioner that a special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence against the petitioner would be held at 1100 a.m. on 19.02.2021 in the office of the Khagarijan Block Development Office. The petitioner had attended the said special meeting convened for the purpose of discussing the motion of no confidence against her. It is the case of the petitioner that 10 [ten] nos. of Ward Members of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat were present in the special meeting and had also cast their votes through secret ballots. 2.2. The petitioner had attended the said special meeting convened for the purpose of discussing the motion of no confidence against her. It is the case of the petitioner that 10 [ten] nos. of Ward Members of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat were present in the special meeting and had also cast their votes through secret ballots. 2.2. The petitioner has asserted that though as per the resolution recorded in connection with the special meeting dated 19.02.2021, the ballot box was opened on that day itself but in fact, the ballot box was not opened during the course of the special meeting. When the petitioner wanted to know as to when the ballot box would be opened, the petitioner was made to understand that the ballot box would be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon for appropriate action and the petitioner would be duly intimated in that connection. It is also pleaded that the petitioner came to know that the respondent no. 4 forwarded the minutes of the special meeting, held on 19.02.2021, to the Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat by a communication dated 20.02.2021 without serving a copy of the same to the petitioner. The petitioner could, however, collect a copy of the said communication dated 20.02.2021 and the minutes of the special meeting dated 19.02.2021 from one of the Ward Members of the Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat after passing of the impugned order dated 25.06.2021 by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon [the respondent no. 2]. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that she submitted a representation before the respondent no. 2 on 26.02.2021 explaining as to why there could be no occasion to express no confidence in her and requested the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate action regarding the motion of no confidence brought against her. 3. I have heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development [P&RD] Department for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 & 8; Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 4; Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7; Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 9, 10, 12 & 13; and Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 14, 15 & 16. 4. Mr. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 4; Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7; Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 9, 10, 12 & 13; and Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 14, 15 & 16. 4. Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions on the lines averred in the writ petition. He has strenuously argued that though the petitioner attended the special meeting, held on 19.02.2021, but during the course of the meeting the ballot box was never opened, meaning thereby, the secret votes cast in the said special meeting were calculated on another date, behind the back of the petitioner. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the order dated 25.06.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner submitted a representation on 03.07.2021 reiterating her stand that the ballot box was never opened during the course of the special meeting in her presence. Mr. Hazarika has further submitted that the timelines prescribed in the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended, had been violated inasmuch as the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat did not bring the written requisition submitted by 7 [seven] Ward Members to the knowledge of the petitioner in a proper manner and within the prescribed time period, which have vitiated the entire process leading to the passing of the motion of no confidence. 5. Mr. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department, who has received the relevant records in original, has made his objections regarding the allegation of non-opening of the ballot box during the course of the special meeting. By relying on the records, he has submitted that the ballot box was opened in presence of the petitioner and all the Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat, who attended the said special meeting. The very fact that the petitioner had attended the special meeting is discernible from the fact that the petitioner herself had subscribed her signature in the minutes of the special meeting held on 19.02.2021. It is his submission that when the petitioner after attending the special meeting on 19.02.2021, had submitted a representation before the respondent no. The very fact that the petitioner had attended the special meeting is discernible from the fact that the petitioner herself had subscribed her signature in the minutes of the special meeting held on 19.02.2021. It is his submission that when the petitioner after attending the special meeting on 19.02.2021, had submitted a representation before the respondent no. 2, the petitioner did not make any mention about non-opening of the ballot box during the course of the special meeting and as such, the plea as regards non-opening of the ballot box is only an afterthought, which had been belatedly taken in her representation dated 03.07.2021. Mr. Roy has further submitted all the procedure that have been laid down in Section 15 and Section 18 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, had been duly followed. Since the motion of no confidence had been passed against the petitioner i.e. the President of the Gaon Panchayat by 2/3rd majority, no interference is called for and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Ms. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam has reiterated the stand that has been taken in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2. It is her submission that the special meeting was convened on 19.02.2021 after issuance of a notice on 16.02.2021 to all the stakeholders for attending the special meeting. The proceedings of the special meeting were duly recorded. Ms. Barman has submitted that it has been clearly averred in the affidavit-in-opposition that the ballot box was opened in presence of all who attended the special meeting on 19.02.2021 and the said averment has not been traversed by the petitioner in any manner by filling any affidavit-in-reply. 7. Mr. Bhuyan and Mr. Mishra have adopted the submissions made on behalf of the State respondents. Mr. Mishra has submitted that requisition dated 19.01.2021 was duly served upon the petitioner. When the petitioner failed to convene the special meeting within 15 [fifteen] days' time period, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat [the respondent no. 8] had intimated the matter to the President of Khagarijan Anchalik Panchayat within 3 [three] days after expiry of 15 [fifteen] days i.e. 05.02.2021. When no action was taken by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat within the stipulated time period, the Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat vide his letter dated 11.02.2021 informed the respondent no. 8. 8] had intimated the matter to the President of Khagarijan Anchalik Panchayat within 3 [three] days after expiry of 15 [fifteen] days i.e. 05.02.2021. When no action was taken by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat within the stipulated time period, the Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat vide his letter dated 11.02.2021 informed the respondent no. 8. Having received of the letter dated 11.02.2021 from the Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat, the respondent no. 8 forwarded the matter to the respondent no. 2 to convene the special meeting. It was upon receipt of the afore-stated letter, the respondent no. 2, by issuing notice dated 16.02.2021, had convened the special meeting on 19.02.2021. He has, thus, submitted that the contention as regards non-adherence to the timelines to be followed in terms of the Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 appears to have no basis. 8. Mr. Banik has submitted that the requisition dated 19.01.2021 whereby a number of Ward Members had allegedly expressed lack of confidence in the petitioner, was not addressed to the President of the Gaon Panchayat i.e. the petitioner and as such, the same was not a proper requisition in the eye of law for convening a special meeting to discuss a motion of no confidence. He has further submitted that the entire proceedings of the special meeting were video graphed. As some of the Ward Members had, later on, adopted a stand that the ballot box was not opened during the course of the special meeting, a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to take a decision afresh on the basis of the records of videography. 9. I have duly considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. I have also gone through the records produced by Mr. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department. 10. The petitioner was elected directly for the post of President of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat in terms of the provisions of Clause [b] of sub-section [1] of Section 6 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 [‘the Panchayat Act’, for short]. 11. At the inception, it is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 15 as well as Section 18 of the Panchayat Act. 11. At the inception, it is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 15 as well as Section 18 of the Panchayat Act. Section 15 of the Panchayat Act has provided for the matter of no confidence against the President and the Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat. It is provided, interalia, in sub-section [1] of Section 15 that every President of a Gaon Panchayat shall deemed to have vacated his office forthwith when a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by two third majority of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat. It has also provided for the procedure for convening a special meeting. As per Section 15[1], a special meeting is to be convened by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat with the approval of the President of the Gaon Panchayat. In case such a special meeting is not convened within a period of 15 [fifteen] days from the date of receipt of the notice, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat is required to refer the matter within 3 [three] days therefrom to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat, who has, in turn, to convene the special meeting within 7 [seven] days from the date of receipt of the information from the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and preside over such meeting. In case the President of the Anchalik Panchayat does not take action as above, within the specified 7 [seven] days’ time, the concerned Gaon Panchayat Secretary shall have to inform the matter to the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer [Civil], as the case may be, within 3 [three] days after the expiry of the stipulated 7 [seven] days’ time and in such a situation, the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer [Civil] shall have to convene the special meeting within 7 [seven] days from the date of receipt of the information with intimation to the Zilla Parishad and the Anchalik Panchayat and preside over the special meeting so convened. It has further provided that the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer [Civil], as the case may be, in case of his inability to preside over the special meeting, may depute one Gazetted Officer under him not below the rank of Class-I Gazetted Officer to preside over such special meeting. It has further provided that the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer [Civil], as the case may be, in case of his inability to preside over the special meeting, may depute one Gazetted Officer under him not below the rank of Class-I Gazetted Officer to preside over such special meeting. The requisition for such a special meeting shall be signed by not less than one third of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat and shall be delivered to the President or VicePresident, as the case may be, of the concerned Gaon Panchayat with information to the Deputy Commissioner of the District [Section 15(2)]. Subsection [5] of Section 18 of the Panchayat Act has made it mandatory that the voting in a special meeting, where a no confidence motion is discussed, the matter has to be decided by the secret ballot. 12. There is no dispute to the fact that on 19.01.2021 7 [seven] nos. of Ward Members of Dimaruguri Gaon Panchayat had submitted a requisition in writing before the Secretary of the said Gaon Panchayat with the request to convene a special meeting expressing want of confidence in the President of the Gaon Panchayat i.e. the petitioner and had requested to take necessary action in that regard. The petitioner had pleaded that it was only on 27.01.2021, the said requisition dated 19.01.2021 was brought to her knowledge. The records revealed that the petitioner had received the notice under the signature, but without mentioning the date of such receipt. Then in such situation, there arises two possibilities with regard to the date of receipt. It could be either 19.01.2021 or 27.01.2021. If the date of the notice i.e. 19.01.2021 is taken as the date of knowledge of the petitioner of the requisition then the 15 [fifteen] days’ period expired on 03.02.2021 and it was on 05.02.2021, the respondent no. 6 had forwarded the matter to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat stating that the President of the Gaon Panchayat did not accord her approval within the 15 [fifteen] days’ time period. If such was the case, there was no infraction of the time period. If on the other hand, the date which has been contended by the petitioner the requisition was brought to her knowledge, that is, 27.01.2021 is taken into consideration, in that case there would be primafacie infraction of the provisions of Section 15[1] of the Panchayat Act, 1994. If such was the case, there was no infraction of the time period. If on the other hand, the date which has been contended by the petitioner the requisition was brought to her knowledge, that is, 27.01.2021 is taken into consideration, in that case there would be primafacie infraction of the provisions of Section 15[1] of the Panchayat Act, 1994. The question that arises then whether such infraction would invalidate the motion of no confidence. 13. The Executive Officer, Anchalik Panchayat by his letter dated 11.02.2021 had intimated the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat that when the matter was brought to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat, the President of the Anchalik Panchayat did not convene the special meeting within the stipulated time period citing illness on her part. Having received of the said letter dated 11.02.2021 from the Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat forwarded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner by her letter dated 12.02.2021, by bringing into his notice the previous events sequentially, with the request to do the needful in the matter of no confidence motion against the petitioner. In such situation, the Deputy Commissioner by his notice dated 16.02.2021 had convened the said special meeting at 11-00 a.m. on 19.02.2021 in the office of the Block Development Officer. By the said notice, it was also intimated to the stakeholders that the Circle Officer, Nagaon Sadar Revenue Circle would preside over the said special meeting. Having received of the said notice dated 16.02.2021 from the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, the petitioner had attended the special meeting convened on 19.02.2021. 14. With regard to the contention that the ballot box was never opened during the course of the special meeting, convened and held on 19.02.2021 is concerned, it is noticed that the petitioner after being present throughout the proceedings of that special meeting, did not made any grievance in that respect till 03.07.2021. On 26.02.2021, the petitioner had made a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon on the subject-matter of motion of no confidence brought against her. In the said representation dated 26.02.2021, the petitioner had sought to disprove 3 [three] nos. of allegations brought against her by the members of the Gaon Panchayat. On 26.02.2021, the petitioner had made a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon on the subject-matter of motion of no confidence brought against her. In the said representation dated 26.02.2021, the petitioner had sought to disprove 3 [three] nos. of allegations brought against her by the members of the Gaon Panchayat. By making mention of the matter of bringing the motion of no confidence against her, the petitioner had requested the Deputy Commissioner to take a proper decision in respect of the motion of no confidence brought against her. Though she attended the special meeting convened and held on 19.02.2021, the petitioner did not make any allegation of commission of any irregularities in the said special meeting in her said representation dated 26.02.2021. The petitioner was completely silent in that representation about any allegation of not opening the ballot box in the special meeting convened and held on 19.02.2021. The petitioner has not denied the fact that the respondent no. 4 who had presided over the special meeting held on 19.02.2021, forwarded minutes of the special meeting to the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon on 20.02.2021. The assertion made by the respondent no. 2 in the affidavit-in-opposition that the ballot box was opened and secret ballots were counted on 19.02.2021 has not been denied by the petitioner by traversing it in any manner including by filling any affidavit-in-reply to the said affidavit-in-opposition. 15. The issue of want of no confidence has to be decided in a special meeting in terms of the provisions of Section 15[1] read with Section 18[5] of the Panchayat Act. The special meeting was presided over by a Gazetted Officer of Class-I who was deputed by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon. In the special meeting, the motion of no confidence was adopted through secret ballots. There is no denial on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner did not attend the special meeting. In such view of the matter, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding non-opening of the ballot box during the course of the special meeting convened and held on 19.02.2021 is not acceptable. 16. At this stage, it will be apposite to refer to a 3-Judges decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Padmini Singha vs. State of Assam and others, reported in [2018] 10 SCC 561. The respondent no. 16. At this stage, it will be apposite to refer to a 3-Judges decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Padmini Singha vs. State of Assam and others, reported in [2018] 10 SCC 561. The respondent no. 6 therein was the President of Masughat Gaon Panchayat against whom a no confidence motion was brought by 7 members of the Gaon Panchayat by submitting a requisition dated 30.01.2014. When no action was found to be taken by the respondent no. 6 on the requisition, the matter was forwarded by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat. A special meeting was ultimately convened on 31.03.2014 in the office of the Anchalik Panchayat and the said meeting was presided by the Block Development Officer [BDO]. The meeting was attended by the respondent no. 6 and the motion of no confidence was passed against the respondent no. 6. On the grounds that the BDO was not authorized by the Deputy Commissioner to preside over the special meeting and it is the Deputy Commissioner who can only convene such a special meeting, a writ petition was preferred. As the respondent had attended the special meeting where the voting took place, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that as the respondent no. 6 was well aware that the meeting was convened to discuss the motion of no confidence, it was not open for the respondent no. 6 to urge that there was non-compliance of a mandatory provision of law. The decision in Padmini Singha [supra] has been rendered in reference to the well settled proposition of law that a mandatory provision of law requires strict compliance but there are situations where even if a provision is mandatory, non-compliance would not result in nullification of the act. There are certain exceptions and one such exception is, if a certain requirement or condition is provided in a statute for the benefit or interest of a particular person, the same can be waived by him if no public interest is involved. The ultimate result would be valid even if the requirement or condition is not performed. It has been held in Padmini Singha [supra] that in the obtaining fact situation therein, no public interest was affected. The ultimate result would be valid even if the requirement or condition is not performed. It has been held in Padmini Singha [supra] that in the obtaining fact situation therein, no public interest was affected. Since the President of the Gaon Panchayat knowing fully well about the reason for convening the special meeting, the petitioner participated in the special meeting, it was not open for the President thereafter, to assail the same after losing in the voting process. Having participated in the meeting, it had to be held that the President of the Gaon Panchayat had waived the condition precedent. 17. In the backdrop of the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand, more particularly, the fact that the petitioner had attended the special meeting convened and held on 19.02.2021 after having received the notice dated 16.02.2021 from the Deputy Commissioner, it is not open for the petitioner to raise a plea regarding non-compliance of the condition of expiry of 15 [fifteen] days’ time period in the interregnum from the date the notice, according to her, was brought to her knowledge i.e. on 27.01.2021 till the matter was sent to the Anchalik Panchayat by Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat i.e on 05.02.2021. 18. Waiver involves a voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known existing right. Though the petitioner has raised a plea herein that the requisition dated 19.01.2021 expressing want of confidence in her was never brought to her knowledge at any time prior to 27.01.2021 and as a result, the secretary of the Gaon Panchayat could not have assumed the authority and jurisdiction to send the matter to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat on 05.02.2021 i.e. which was purportedly within expiry of 15 days from 27.01.2021, the petitioner did not assert such right at the proper opportunity. Waiver is a question of conduct and can be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. Having participated in the special meeting convened and held for the specific purpose to discuss the motion of no confidence in her it is not open for the petitioner to raise such a plea at a subsequent date after having failed to prevent the motion being passed against her in the special meeting at an anterior date wherein she knowingly participated. It is also not open for the petitioner to say that she was not aware about the purpose of the convening and holding the special meeting on 19.02.2021 pursuant to the notice dated 16.02.2021, which notice the petitioner did not deny to have not received by her, because the notice dated 16.02.2021 sent by the Deputy Commissioner had clearly indicated the specific purpose for which the special meeting was convened. Having not raised any such plea of non-adherence to the time period and the manner of convening a special meeting to discuss a motion of no confidence at any date earlier and after having participated in the special meeting on 19.02.2021, the conduct of the petitioner is clear demonstration of waiver of the right to challenge her removal from the President of the Gaon Panchayat on such grounds. In such situation, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the non-expiry of 15 [fifteen] days’ time period has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. 19. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons cited therein, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Having found the writ petition devoid of any merit, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.