JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K. Konwar, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development [P&RD] Department for the respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4; Mr. B. Deuri, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 2; and Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5–20. 2. The petitioner after being elected as a Member of Moirabari Anchalik Panchayat from Lalipathar Gaon Panchayat in the Panchayat General Election, was further elected as the President of Moirabari Anchalik Panchayat. 14 nos. of Members of the Anchalik Panchayat submitted a requisition notice dated 12.04.2022 before the Executive Officer, Moirabari Anchalik Panchayat on 13.04.2022 expressing want of confidence in the petitioner as President of the Anchalik Panchayat and by the said requisition notice, the 14 nos. of members had sought for convening a special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence. 3. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the requisition notice dated 12.04.2022 was received by the Executive Officer, Moirabari Anchalik Panchayat on 13.04.2022 but the same was never brought to the notice and knowledge of the petitioner seeking her approval to convene the special meeting to discuss the motion of no confidence. The Executive Officer, Moirabari Anchalik Panchayat had forwarded the matter on his own to the President of Morigaon Zilla Parishad vide his letter dated 29.04.2022 for further necessary action. 3.1. It is submitted by him that notwithstanding the above, it is revealed from a letter dated 20.04.2022 of the Executive Officer, Moirabari Anchalik Panchayat that the requisition notice had been shown forwarded to the petitioner purportedly by a letter dated 20.04.2022. Even if the said date, that is, 20.04.2022 is taken as the date of bringing the requisition notice dated 13.04.2022 to the notice and knowledge of the petitioner, then also the 15 [fifteen] days period did not expire on 29.04.2022, the date on which the Executive Officer, Moirabari Anchalik Panchayat had forwarded the requisition notice to the President, Morigaon Zilla Parishad. As such, the assumption of authority and jurisdiction by the Executive Officer, Moirabari Anchalik Panchayat to forward the requisition notice on 29.04.2022 prior to expiry of 15 [fifteen] days time period is ex-facie illegal. In such view of the matter, Mr. As such, the assumption of authority and jurisdiction by the Executive Officer, Moirabari Anchalik Panchayat to forward the requisition notice on 29.04.2022 prior to expiry of 15 [fifteen] days time period is ex-facie illegal. In such view of the matter, Mr. Ali has contended that all consequential action including the resolution passed in the special meeting held on 13.05.2022 under the chairmanship of the President, Morigaon Zilla Parishad on the basis of such requisition notice is not sustainable in law. 3.2. Mr. Ali, in support of his submissions, has referred to a decision of this Court in Rajia Patir vs. State of Assam & Others, reported in 2016 [4] GLT 854. 4. In Rejia Patir [supra], the subject-matter was adoption of a resolution of no confidence against the petitioner therein who was the President of Ghilamara Anchalik Panchayat, in a special meeting held on 27.07.2015. 8 [eight] Members of the Anchalik Panchayat submitted a requisition notice on the subject of no confidence against the petitioner therein. On receipt of the requisition notice, the Block Development Officer and Ex-Officio Secretary of Ghilamara Anchalik Panchayat forwarded the requisition notice to the concerned Zilla Parishad on 13.07.2015 without waiting for expiry of 15 [fifteen] days as stipulated under Section 43 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad issued a notice on 16.07.2015 convening a special meeting for the purpose of considering the no confidence motion on 24.07.2015. The special meeting was accordingly held in the office of the Zilla Parishad where the motion was passed with requisite majority. 5. At this juncture, it is apposite to take note of the provisions contained in Section 15 and Section 43 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended. 5.1. Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1944 has inter alia provided for the procedure for passing no confidence motion against the President of an Anchalik 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. 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 from the 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. 5.2. Section 43 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1944 has inter alia provided for the procedure for passing no confidence motion against the President and the Vice-President of Anchalik Panchayat. It has been laid down therein that every President and Vice-President of the Anchalik Panchayat shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith, if by a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of two-third of total number of the directly elected members of the Anchalik Panchayat. As per the procedure laid down therein, such a meeting shall be specially convened with the approval of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat. If the motion is against the President of the Anchalik Panchayat then such meeting shall be presided over by the Vice-President of the Anchalik Panchayat. In case such a meeting is not convened by the Anchalik Panchayat within a period of 15 [fifteen] days from the date of receipt of the notice, the Secretary of the Anchalik Panchayat shall refer the matter to the President of the Zilla Parishad with intimation to the Deputy Commissioner. The President of the Zilla Parishad shall then arrange for convening the meeting within 15 [fifteen] days from the date of receipt of intimation. The Zilla Parishad President shall preside over such meeting but shall have no vote. 6. The President of the Zilla Parishad shall then arrange for convening the meeting within 15 [fifteen] days from the date of receipt of intimation. The Zilla Parishad President shall preside over such meeting but shall have no vote. 6. In Sita Satnami vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2010 [3] GLT 291, which was in the context of Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 and in relation to a no confidence motion against the President of a Gaon Panchayat, the requisition notice was placed before the President on 16.07.2009. However, before expiry of 15 [fifteen] days, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat referred the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat on 27.07.2009 and the Court held such action of the Secretary in referring the matter before expiry of 15 [fifteen] days was without jurisdiction. 7. In Ali Ahmed Mazumdar vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2011 [3] GLT 396, a Division Bench of this Court approved the decision rendered in Sita Satnami [supra]. It was held that requisition notice received by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary cannot be construed to be due notice to the President and the period of 15 [fifteen] days as contemplated under Section 15 can be counted only from the date of bringing the requisition notice to the personal knowledge of the President formally through office note and not otherwise. 8. In Rejia Khatun [supra], the principle applicable in respect of Section 15 has been held to be applicable in relation to Section 43 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 as both the statutory provisions are relatable to no confidence motion. 9. Having regard to the principles laid down in Sita Satnami [supra], Ali Ahmed Mazumdar [supra] and Rejia Khatun [supra] in the context of facts situation obtaining in the case in hand, it is noticed that the Executive Officer, Moirabari Anchalik Panchayat without waiting for expiry of 15 [fifteen] days from 20.04.2022, had forwarded the requisition notice dated 13.04.2022 to the jurisdictional Zilla Parishad on 29.04.2022 and as such, the ratio of the decisions in Rajia Patir vs. State of Assam & Others, reported in 2016 [4] GLT 854; Sita Satnami vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2010 [3] GLT 291; and Ali Ahmed Mazumdar vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2011 [3] GLT 396, is found squarely applicable proprio vigore in the case in hand. In such view of the matter, the resolution stated to have been passed in the special meeting held on 13.05.2022, under the chairmanship of the President, Morigaon Zilla Parishad on the basis of the requisition notice dated 13.04.2022 is found not sustainable in law and therefore, the same is interfered with. 10. The second proviso to sub-section [1] of Section 15 of the Panchayat Act, 1994 has provided that when a no confidence motion is lost, no such motion shall be allowed in the next 6 [six] months. The Full Bench of this Court in Forhana Begum Laskar [supra] has considered the meaning of the word, ‘lost’ in the text and the context in which the word has appeared in the statutory framework of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. Elucidating the same, it has been observed that the word, ‘lost’ cannot be conceived of as an inevitable consequence of any infringement of the prescribed procedural rigour either by breach of the time frame or unwarranted interference of any authority at any stage of the process or reasons akin thereto. 11. The third proviso to Section 43[2][b] of the Assam Panchayat Act has provided that if it is not possible to hold the meeting due to non-attendance of requisite number of members in such meeting or meetings, as the case may be, the no confidence shall automatically stands cancelled and the motion shall be deemed to have lost, in the event of which no such motion shall be allowed within the next six months. In the considered view of the Court, the prohibition under the third proviso to sub-section [2] [b] of Section 43 would only become operational when there is a special meeting and the motion is not carried out as per the provisions of Section 43 or the special meeting could not be held for lack of quorum. The facts of the case in hand have revealed that the special meeting was convened and held on 13.05.2022 to discuss the motion of no confidence; the special meeting had the requisite quorum; and the motion was also passed with requisite majority of two-third majority of the total number of members of the Anchalik Panchayat. The facts of the case in hand have revealed that the special meeting was convened and held on 13.05.2022 to discuss the motion of no confidence; the special meeting had the requisite quorum; and the motion was also passed with requisite majority of two-third majority of the total number of members of the Anchalik Panchayat. But the motion has not received the validation in view of the breach of the principle laid down regarding non-expiry of 15 [fifteen] days period for the President of the Anchalik Panchayat to convene the special meeting on receipt of a requisition notice in terms of Section 43 of the Panchayat Act, 1994. Thus, this Court is of the view that the same cannot attract the restrictions imposed under the third proviso to sub-section [2][b] of Section 43 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. 12. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5–20 has submitted that as it is prima facie demonstrable that the petitioner has apparently lost the confidence of the two-third majority of the total number of directly elected members of the Anchalik Panchayat for a long time and in such view of the matter, the petitioner should be directed to convene a special meeting forthwith to decide on the motion of no confidence brought against him. In support of his such submission, reliance is placed in the decisions of this Court in Rita Rani Dushad vs. The State of Assam and others, reported in 2016 [4] GLT 905; Mocklishur Rahman Laskar vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2017 [4] GLT 933; and W.P.[C] no. 4921/2021 [Sushama Nath vs. The State of Assam and others], decided on 04.10.2021. 13. Having regard to the entire conspectus of background fact situation obtaining in the case in hand, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot be oblivious of the fact that on the previous occasion, requisition notice was submitted by requisite not less than one-third of the total members of the Anchalik Panchayat expressing want of confidence against the President of the Anchalik Panchayat i.e. the petitioner. As on the previous occasion, the process subsequent to requisition notice expressing want of confidence has stood invalidated due to infraction of the statutory provision of non-expiry of a period of 15 [fifteen] days after bringing the requisition notice to the personal knowledge of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat. As on the previous occasion, the process subsequent to requisition notice expressing want of confidence has stood invalidated due to infraction of the statutory provision of non-expiry of a period of 15 [fifteen] days after bringing the requisition notice to the personal knowledge of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat. This Court is, thus, of the considered view that it would be failing in its duty in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if this Court does not direct the petitioner to hold a special meeting to decide the no confidence motion brought against her. 14. In the light of the above directions and taking note of the directions made in the decisions in Rita Rani Dushad vs. The State of Assam and others, reported in 2016 [4] GLT 905; Mocklishur Rahman Laskar vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2017 [4] GLT 933; and W.P.[C] no. 4921/2021 [Sushama Nath vs. The State of Assam and others], decided on 04.10.2021, while allowing the writ petition to the extent indicated above, it is directed that the President of Moirabari Anchalik Panchayat i.e. the petitioner will issue notices for holding a special meeting in the office of the Anchalik Panchayat by serving them upon all the stakeholders, by intimating the time and the date at which the same is convened. In order to ensure that the proceedings in the special meeting are carried out properly, the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon shall depute a Gazetted Officer not below the rank of Class-I, as an observer for the purpose of the special meeting. 15. Until the special meeting to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner is held in terms of the above direction and the no confidence motion is decided, the petitioner will function as the President of Moirabari Anchalik Panchayat, but without taking any major decision in financial matters. 16. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above with the afore-mentioned observations and directions. No cost.