JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has laid a challenge to a Resolution adopted on 25.07.2024 in a meeting of the Titabor Municipal Board, whereby, the petitioner was removed from the post of Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. The petitioner has also challenged a Resolution adopted in a separate meeting held on 25.07.2024 by the Ward Commissioners of Titabor Municipal Board, whereby, the respondent no. 8 was elected as the new Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board for the unexpired term. The petitioner has also simultaneously challenged a Resolution adopted on 25.10.2024 by the Ward Commissioners of Titabor Municipal Board, whereby, the respondent no. 8 has once again been elected as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. 2. The Titabor Municipal Board is a Municipal Board constituted under Section 10 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 , as amended [‘the Act, 1956’ or ‘the 1956 Act’, for short]. 3. As per provisions contained in Section 26 [1] of the Act, 1956, every Municipality unless sooner dissolved under Section 298, shall continue for five years from the date of first meeting of newly constituted Board after a General Election at which quorum is present. As per sub-section [2] of Section 33 of the Act, 1956, at the first meeting of a Municipal Board after a General Election called at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, the Commissioners are to elect one from amongst the elected Commissioners to be the Chairman. The election is subject to the approval of the State Government but pending such approval, the person elected shall be competent to discharge the duties of the Chairperson. As per sub-section [3] of Section 33, the Commissioners at the said first meeting or at a subsequent meeting, are to elect one of their elected Commissioners to be the Vice-Chairperson. 4. In the last General Election held for Ward Commissioners of Titabor Municipal Board, the petitioner stood elected as a Ward Commissioner from Ward no. 1. After the General Election, the petitioner was elected as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board as per the provisions of sub-section [2] of Section 33 of the Act, 1956. After being elected as the Chairperson, the petitioner was discharging her duties or as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. 5. 1. After the General Election, the petitioner was elected as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board as per the provisions of sub-section [2] of Section 33 of the Act, 1956. After being elected as the Chairperson, the petitioner was discharging her duties or as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. 5. When the petitioner was discharging the duties as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board, two requisitions came to be submitted on 28.06.2024 and 29.06.2024 by four Ward Commissioners each expressing want of confidence in the petitioner to continue as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board and by the said requisitions, the requisitionists called for a special meeting to decide the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner to continue as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. In the Titabor Municipal Board, there were ten elected Ward Commissioners, at the relevant point. 6. Section 43 of the Act, 1956 has provided for ordinary and special meetings. As per sub-section [2] of Section 43, the Chairperson or in his absence, the Vice- Chairperson may call a special meeting whenever he thinks fit and shall call one on a requisition signed by not less than three of the Ward Commissioners. It has been provided in sub-section [3] of Section 43 that if the Chairperson or the Vice- Chairperson fails to call a special meeting to meet within twenty days after any such requisition has been made, the meeting can be called by the persons who signed the requisition. 7. It transpires that the petitioner did not call for a special meeting within a period of twenty days despite receipt of the requisitions, mentioned above, from eight of the Ward Commissioners. It has further emerged that the Additional District Commissioner, In-Charge, Titabor had also requested the petitioner to call for a special meeting in terms of the requisitions so made, by a Communication dated 02.07.2024. In view of failure on the part of the petitioner to call for a special meeting on the basis of requisitions submitted by eight nos. of Ward Commissioners, the eight Ward Commissioners-requisitionists, after the expiry of twenty days, informed the petitioner by a Communication dated 18.07.2024 that as the petitioner failed to hold the special meeting on 20.07.2024 within the stipulated period of twenty days, the said Ward Commissioners would be holding a meeting in terms of Section 43 [3] of the Act, 1956. 8. of Ward Commissioners, the eight Ward Commissioners-requisitionists, after the expiry of twenty days, informed the petitioner by a Communication dated 18.07.2024 that as the petitioner failed to hold the special meeting on 20.07.2024 within the stipulated period of twenty days, the said Ward Commissioners would be holding a meeting in terms of Section 43 [3] of the Act, 1956. 8. It was in that backdrop, a meeting was held on 25.07.2024 at 02-00 p.m. In the same meeting held on 25.07.2024 at 02-00 p.m., the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner to continue as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board was discussed and the meeting was presided over by the Vice-Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. After discussing the motion of no confidence, all the Ward Commissioners present in the meeting supported the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board and as a result, the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board was unanimously adopted. 9. The resolution adopted further mentioned that the next meeting would be held after one and half hour to decide about election of the next Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. The Ward Commissioners met again at 05-00 p.m. on 25.07.2024 to hold another meeting with the Vice-Chairman of Titabor Municipal Board in the chair. In the said meeting, the name of the respondent no. 8 was proposed as the new Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board and that motion came to be adopted and the new Chairperson, that is, the respondent no. 8 so elected, was administered oath on the same date. 10. Aggrieved by the two resolutions adopted on 25.07.2024 for removal of the petitioner from the post of Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board and for election of a new Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3891/2024. It was agitated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was given only one day notice and as such, the Resolution adopted on 25.07.2024 was not in accordance with law. The point was agitated on the basis of Section 46 [4] of the Act, 1956 which stipulated that the notice had to be a three days notice. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3891/2024 was disposed of on 05.08.2024 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. The point was agitated on the basis of Section 46 [4] of the Act, 1956 which stipulated that the notice had to be a three days notice. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3891/2024 was disposed of on 05.08.2024 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the provisions contained in Section 43 [3] and Section 46 [4] of the Act, 1956, the Court had observed that the provisions of Section 46 [4] of the Act, 1956 was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court had observed that there was no infirmity in the Resolution dated 25.07.2024 whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. The Court had, however, observed that the vacancy of the Chairperson was required to be filled up in terms of Section 41 [2] of the Act, 1956. It was further observed that though the petitioner was removed by the Resolution dated 25.07.2024, she would be entitled to contest for the post of Chairperson again. 11. Challenging the Order dated 05.08.2024 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3891/2024, the petitioner carried the matter to the Division Bench by way of an intra-court appeal, Writ Appeal no. 295/2024. The Division Bench after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the intra-court appeal, Writ Appeal no. 295/2024 by an Order dated 12.09.2024. 12. It was thereafter, the petitioner laid a challenge to the Resolution adopted on 25.07.2024 in the subsequent meeting whereby the respondent no. 8 was elected as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4754/2024. The said writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4754/2024 came up for consideration on 21.11.2024. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court had recorded that the entire writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4754/2024 was based on the premise that there was infraction of the provision contained in sub-section [2] of Section 41 of the Act, 1956 in that without removal of the petitioner from the post of the Chairperson, there could not have been a notice issued for filling up the vacancy of the post of Chairperson of a Municipal Board. The Court had found out during the course of the hearing that during the pendency of the writ petition, a meeting of the Ward Commissioners was called by the respondent no. The Court had found out during the course of the hearing that during the pendency of the writ petition, a meeting of the Ward Commissioners was called by the respondent no. 8 on 21.10.2024 and in the said meeting, the respondent no. 8 resigned as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. In the same meeting, a Resolution was also adopted that the election of the respondent no. 8 as the Chairperson on 25.07.2024 was null and void. 13. In such obtaining facts and circumstances, the Court had found that the Vice- Chairperson of Municipal Board issued a Notice on 22.10.2024 calling for a meeting on 25.10.2024 for election of a new Chairperson of Municipal Board. The Board meeting so called for on 25.10.2024, was accordingly held wherein eight Ward Commissioners duly participated and the petitioner had chosen not to participate in the said meeting. In the meeting held on 25.10.2024, a Resolution was adopted electing the respondent no. 8 as the Chairperson of Municipal Board. The Court had also recorded that the Resolution adopted on 25.10.2024 was not put to challenge. In such obtaining fact situation, the Court had observed that nothing survived in the writ petition to adjudicate as by the Resolution adopted on 21.10.2024, the earlier Resolution adopted on 25.07.2024 for electing the respondent no. 8 as the Chairperson had already been nullified. By the Order dated 21.11.2024, the Court observed held that the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4754/2024 had been rendered infructuous in view of the subsequent events. By the Order dated 21.11.2024, liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the minutes of the meeting dated 25.10.2024 whereby the respondent no. 8 had been again elected as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board, if it was otherwise permissible under the law. 14. It is in the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition has been preferred with the prayers, mentioned above. 15. I have heard Mr. P.K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. S. Konwar, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5; and Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6, 7 & 8. 16. Though Mr. 15. I have heard Mr. P.K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. S. Konwar, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5; and Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6, 7 & 8. 16. Though Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions about the validity or otherwise of the Resolution adopted on 25.07.2024, in the first of two meetings of the Municipal Board regarding removal of the petitioner from the post of Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board, it is found that the said issue is not open for any further consideration. It has already been found from the discussion above that the petitioner had earlier challenged the Resolution taken on the motion of no confidence on 25.07.2024 in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3891/2024. The Court, in its Order dated 05.08.2024, did not find any infirmity in the said Resolution adopted on 25.07.2024 whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. The Order dated 05.08.2024 was challenged by the petitioner as a writ appellant in the intra-court appeal, Writ Appeal no. 295/2024. The Division Bench had also dismissed the intra-court appeal by an Order dated 02.09.2024 finding no case for interference and dismissed the writ appeal. In such backdrop, it is not open for the petitioner to make a challenge again to the Resolution adopted on 25.07.2024 in the meeting of Titabor Municipal Board on the motion of no confidence whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. It is pertinent to mention that in the said meeting held on 25.07.2024, eight Ward Commissioners expressed no confidence on the petitioner and decided against continuance of the petitioner as a Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. 17. As per sub-section [2] of Section 28 of the Act, 1956, an elected Chairperson can be removed from his office by a resolution of the Board in favour of which more than half of the whole number of Commissioners give their votes at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. The Titapur Municipal Board, at the relevant time, had ten Ward Commissioners and out of them, eight had voted in favour of the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. The Titapur Municipal Board, at the relevant time, had ten Ward Commissioners and out of them, eight had voted in favour of the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. There is no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that there has to be an approval of the Government to the Resolution adopted regarding removal of the Chairperson of a Municipal Board. On a close reading of the provision in sub-section [2] of Section 28 of the Act, 1956, it is discernible that a Chairperson stands removed from his office as soon as a Resolution is passed by more than half of the whole number of commissioners in favour of the motion of no confidence against the Chairperson in a meeting of the Board specially convened for the purpose. There is no statutory requirement of Government approval to such a resolution. 18. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in case of filling up of a vacancy in the office of the Chairperson of a Municipal Board, there has to be approval of the Government. 19. Section 41 of the Act, 1956 contains the provisions for filling up of casual vacancies of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of a Municipal Board. As per sub-section [1] of Section 41, if any Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson of a Board is unable to complete his full term of office or avails himself of leave granted under Section 40, the vacancy caused by his resignation, removal, death or absence on leave shall be filled up by election and the person to be elected shall fill such vacancy for the unexpired portion of the term for which such Chairperson or as the case may be, Vice-Chairperson would otherwise have continued in office, provided that no person appointed under sub-section [2] of Section 11 shall be elected as the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson. 20. In case of removal of a Chairperson of a Board, the vacancy resulting from such removal, is to be filled up by election and the person elected to the office of the Chairperson can continue in the unexpired portion of a term for which the removed Chairperson would otherwise have continued in his office. 21. 20. In case of removal of a Chairperson of a Board, the vacancy resulting from such removal, is to be filled up by election and the person elected to the office of the Chairperson can continue in the unexpired portion of a term for which the removed Chairperson would otherwise have continued in his office. 21. As per sub-section [2] of Section 41 of the Act, 1956, in case of vacancy in the office of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson has to call a meeting so as to complete the election within forty-five days of the occurrence of the vacancy. It has further provided that if the Vice-Chairperson fails to call the meeting, the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, shall call the meeting. It is provided in sub-section [3] of Section 41 to the effect that in case such a meeting for election of a Chairperson, the Vice- Chairperson shall preside over the meeting unless he is himself a candidate for election as Chairpeson or in case he cannot preside over the meeting for other reasons, he has to intimate the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, in writing about his inability to preside over the meeting. 22. The respondent no. 8 was earlier elected as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board in the second of the two meetings of the Board held on 25.07.2024. In a meeting held subsequently on 21.10.2024, the respondent no. 8 resigned as the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board and a Resolution to that effect was also adopted in the same meeting that the election of the respondent no. 8 as Chairperson on 25.07.2024 should be treated as null and void. It was thereafter, the Vice-Chairperson of the respondent Municipal Board issued a notice on 22.10.2024 calling for a meeting on 25.10.2024 for election of a new Chairperson of the Municipal Board. 23. From the minutes of meeting of the Municipal Board held on 25.10.2024, it is noticed that the said meeting was presided over by the Vice-Chairperson of the Municipal Board and eight nos. of Ward Commissioners were present in the said meeting. 23. From the minutes of meeting of the Municipal Board held on 25.10.2024, it is noticed that the said meeting was presided over by the Vice-Chairperson of the Municipal Board and eight nos. of Ward Commissioners were present in the said meeting. The petitioner in the writ petition has herself admitted that a notice dated 22.10.2024 was issued under the hand of the Vice-Chairperson of the Municipal Board to all the Ward Commissioners informing them that a meeting had been called on 25.10.2024 for election of a new Chairperson of the Board. The petitioner did not attend the said meeting held on 25.10.2024. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not served with a Notice dated 22.10.2024, meaning thereby, it was the petitioner who had chosen not to attend the meeting of the Municipal Board called on 25.10.2024. The respondent no. 8 was elected as a Chairperson of the Municipal Board in the second meeting held on 25.07.2024. Such election of the respondent no. 8 as the Chairperson of the Municipal Board was not interdicted in any manner till the meeting of the Board held on 21.10.2024. The meeting dated 21.10.2024 was called by the respondent no. 8 in the capacity of the Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. In the said meeting held on 21.10.2024 tendered her resignation from the post of Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. The Board vide Resolution no. 1 adopted in the said meeting on 21.10.2024, decided to accept the resignation tendered by the respondent no. 8 from the post of the Chairperson of the Municipal Board, thereby, relieving the respondent no. 8 from the post of Chairperson. Another Resolution was discussed in the said meeting to hold another meeting of the Board to elect the Chairperson of the Municipal Board after three days. 24. It is already found that the petitioner had challenged the resolution adopted on 25.07.2024 in the second of two meetings on that day in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4754/2024 and the said writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4754/2024 was disposed of on 21.11.2024. Therefore, there cannot be any further to the said resolution dated 25.07.2024. 25. 24. It is already found that the petitioner had challenged the resolution adopted on 25.07.2024 in the second of two meetings on that day in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4754/2024 and the said writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4754/2024 was disposed of on 21.11.2024. Therefore, there cannot be any further to the said resolution dated 25.07.2024. 25. Thereafter, on 22.10.2024, notices were issued to all the persons who were authorized by the provisions of the Act, 1956, to attend such a meeting and the said notice was issued under the hand of the Vice-Chairperson of the Municipal Board. The Vice-Chairperson was not a candidate for the post of Chairperson. By the notice, it was informed that a special meeting would be held at 11-30 a.m. on 25.10.2024 for election of a new Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board. The provisions of sub-section [2] of Section 41 requires that a meeting to elect a new Chairperson, after removal of the previous Chairperson, is to be called within forty-five days of the occurrence of the vacancy. In the case hand, the vacancy of the Chairperson in the office of the Municipal Board, had occurred on and from 21.10.2024. In such view of the matter, the meeting called for and held for election of a new Chairperson of Titabor Municipal Board on 25.10.2024 cannot be said to have held in violation of the provisions containing sub-section [1] of Section 41 of the Act, 1956. 26. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons assigned therein, this Court finds no merit in the case of the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.It is accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.