Soumitra Saikia, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Konwar, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6; Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 to 14.

2. The core issue in the present proceedings relates to the No Confidence Motion brought against the appellant as the President of Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat in Cachar District. The appellant was elected as the President of Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat pursuant to the panchayat election held in the year 2018. On 03.07.2020, a requisition notice was submitted by the respondent Nos. 7 to 14 for holding a special meeting under Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994') for moving a No Confidence Motion against the appellant. On 21.08.2020, a Resolution of No Confidence Motion was passed against the appellant. The appellant being aggrieved, approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 3411/2020, assailing the Resolution dated 21.08.2020. The learned Single Judge by order dated 08.09.2020, disposed of the writ petition at the motion stage in view of the submission made on behalf of the respondent Nos. 9 to 17 that they desire to withdraw the Resolution dated 21.08.2020, whereby the appellant was removed from the post of President of Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat, Silchar. In view of such submission, the learned Single Judge closed the writ petition by accepting the contention of the counsel for the respondents and declared the Resolution dated 21.08.2020 to be null and void. The learned Single Judge also observed that since the Resolution has not been defeated, but it has not been pressed upon by the respondents resulting in its withdrawal, the respondent Nos. 9 to 17 are entitled to proceed in any manner as they may be advised under the law against the appellant/writ petitioner.

3. The private respondents submitted another requisition on 14.09.2020 for convening a special meeting under Section 15 of the Act of 1994 for moving a No Confidence Motion against the appellant. The said notice was received by the appellant on 21.09.2020. It was the case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge that in view of the bar contained in the second proviso to Section 15 of the Act, the appellant sought for legal advice.

4. Since the meeting as requisitioned was not convened, by communication dated 07.10.2020, the Secretary of Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat, by referring to the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act of 1994, intimated the President of Sonai Anchalik Panchayat that the period of 15 days had elapsed on 06.10.2020 and as the President did not convene the meeting as requisitioned, the Secretary of Sonabarighat Gaon Panchayat submitted a petition for convening/holding a meeting for moving a No Confidence Motion to the Sonai Anchalik Panchayat in terms of the provisions of the Act. The appellant, thereafter, approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 3805/2020 challenging the requisition notice dated 14.09.2020 which, however, was subsequently withdrawn on 08.01.2021.

5. The appellant thereafter filed a review application i.e. Review Petition No. 91/2020 seeking review of the order dated 08.09.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 3411/2020. The said review application came to be disposed of vide order dated 15.10.2020 holding inter alia that as the Resolution dated 21.08.2020 was held to be null and void, it has to be understood that the motion was lost and, consequently, the bar contained in the second proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act of 1994 would be applicable.

6. The respondent Nos. 7 to 14 being aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2020 passed in Review Petition No. 91/2020, preferred a writ appeal before a Division Bench of this Court which was registered and numbered as Writ Appeal No. 152/2020. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2020, allowed the writ appeal setting aside the order dated 15.10.2020 passed in Review Petition No. 91/2020. The Division Bench clarified that since the Resolution dated 21.08.2020 adopting No Confidence Motion cannot be said to have been 'lost' within the meaning of Section 15(1) of the Act of 1994, the bar in bringing the No Confidence Motion against the President within six months will not apply. The judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 152/2020 has become final.

7. Pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, the President of Sonai Anchalik Panchayat issued a notice dated 01.12.2020 fixing a special meeting on 07.12.2020 for discussion about the No Confidence Motion against the President i.e. the appellant herein. The special meeting in terms of the notice was duly convened and by a Resolution adopted in the said meeting held on 07.12.2020, it was resolved that the No Confidence Motion against the President i.e. the appellant herein has been approved. It was also unanimously resolved in the said meeting that all development works of the Gaon Panchayat be handed over to the Vice President till any direction comes from the superior authorities. It may be mentioned herein that against the order dated 08.09.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 3411/2020, the appellant had preferred another intra-Court appeal which was registered and numbered as Writ Appeal No. 200/2020. The said writ appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22.01.2021 holding that the order dated 15.10.2020 passed in Review Petition No. 91/2020 got merged with the judgment and order dated 08.09.2020 rendered in WP(C) No. 3411/2020. On the order of review being set aside by the judgment and order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the co-ordinate Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 152/2020, the said writ appeal i.e., Writ Appeal No. 200/2020 filed by the appellant was held to be not maintainable on facts and law.

8. Aggrieved by the Resolution of No Confidence adopted against the appellant in the meeting held on 07.12.2020, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge assailing the said Resolution seeking interference on the same day contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1994. The Resolution dated 07.12.2020 was assailed on the ground that the President of Sonai Anchalik Panchayat did not have the jurisdiction to call for the special meeting on 07.12.2020, after lapse of the mandatory period of 15 days vide notice dated 01.12.2020 as such a meeting could have been convened only by the Deputy Commissioner of the district and, as such, the Resolution dated 07.12.2020 was without jurisdiction.

9. The learned Single Judge upon consideration of the attending facts and the law, dismissed the writ petition. By referring to the law laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Mosira Bibi vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) GLT 460 to the effect that even if the requirement of convening a meeting is mandatory in nature, interference therewith does not follow as a matter of course even in violation thereof, the learned Single Judge held that the time limit specified under Section 15(1) of the Act of 1994 is in the interest of the President and/or the Vice President, as the case may be, of the Gaon Panchayat against whom the Motion of No Confidence is sought to be moved and, as such, the same can be waived by the President or the Vice President. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant having failed to hold the meeting within 06.10.2020, had also waived the requirement of holding the meeting within seven days by the Anchalik Panchayat. In view of such observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order dated 15.10.2020 passed in Review Petition No. 91/2020 and the order dated 08.09.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 3411/2020 have been overlooked by the learned Single Judge. It was contended that both these orders merged with the original order and thus it is non-est in law. Referring to Section 15(1) of the Act, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant never refused the Secretary, but was waiting for the legal advice and, therefore, there was no occasion on the part of the Secretary to refer it to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat. Relying upon Annexure-VI (page 38 of the paper book), it was contended that the said noting clearly indicates that there was no refusal but only legal advice was sought for and the order dated 08.09.2020 passed by this Court was also annexed with it. It was also contended that the judgment of this Court in Mosira Bibi (supra), cannot be applied to the present case. It was also contended that the President of the Anchalik Panchayat loses his jurisdiction in the facts of this case. It was thus contended that the allegation that there is gross violation of Section 15(1) of the Act is without any basis. It was also contended that there was no malafide intention on the part of the appellant. Referring to the provisions of the Act and the factual matrix arising in the present proceedings, it was contended that only procedural safeguard and 15 days protective umbrella is provided. Referring to the facts of the case, it was contended that the notice was received on 21.09.2020 and it was incumbent to decide the same by 06.10.2020 and, as such, no right accrues in favour of the respondents. Referring to the observation made by the learned Single judge in Paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment, it was also contended that the learned Single Judge has mis-directed himself while referring to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Forhana Begum Laskar vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2009 (3) GLT 575 as well as in Mosira Bibi (supra). Referring to the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no estoppel against the appellant and the protective umbrella which is provided therein is available to the appellant and as legal advice was sought for, meeting was not held. It was, thus, contended that the impugned judgment and order being erroneous, deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present appeal.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and has opposed the appeal. It was contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench in Forhana Begum Laskar (supra) and of the Division Bench in Mosira Bibi (supra). It was contended that the appellant failed to exercise the jurisdiction otherwise vested in her as provided under Section 15(1) of the Act and under such circumstances, even though the notice was received by the appellant on 21.09.2020, no meeting was held on or before completion of the statutory period i.e. latest by 06.10.2020 and the Secretary has rightly followed the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act.

12. No other or further contentions or grounds have been raised by the learned counsels for the parties.

13. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. The pleadings on record have been carefully perused. It is seen that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mumtaz Rana Laskar & Ors. vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2006 (1) GLT 46, has held that it would be impermissible to lay down any general rule for determining as to whether a provision is imperative or directory. It was observed that to ascertain the real intention of the Legislature, the Court will have to consider, inter alia, the nature and design of the statute and the consequences which would follow from construing it one way or the other, the impact of other provisions on the necessity of complying with the provisions in question, the circumstances that the statute provides for a contingency of non-compliance of such provisions, penalty if any provided by the statute for such non-compliance and whether the object of the legislation would thereby be defeated. It was held by the co-ordinate Bench that a mere procedural irregularity in the matter of making the reference by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat either to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat or to the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, would have no bearing whatsoever upon the resolution passed in the specially convened meeting expressing want of confidence in the President or the Vice President of the Gaon Panchayat, as the case may be, and the same by itself would not result in causing any prejudice to the person against whom the motion is carried out. It was observed that the democratic process envisaged in Section 15 of the Act cannot be put at the disposal of an insignificant authority who is required to convene the meeting in accordance with law and that any inaction on its part ought not to be allowed to result in frustration and subversion of the very scheme of the Act.

14. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Forhana Begum Laskar vs. State of Assam (supra), while considering the correctness of the views expressed in Mumtaz Rana Laskar (supra) vis-à-vis the views of this Court in Aleya Khatun & Ors. vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2004 (3) GLT 361 and in Basanti Das vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2004 (Supp) GLT 717, upheld the views of the co-ordinate Bench in Mumtaz Rana Laskar (supra). The Full Bench of this Court, however, further explained the views of the co-ordinate Bench in Mumtaz Rana Laskar (supra) by holding that the entire scheme of Section 15 of the Act of 1994 in all its essential features has to be taken to be directory and not mandatory. It was held that each and every departure from the procedure and the time schedule contained therein does not impair the exercise so as to decisively annihilate the same.

The decision of the co-ordinate Bench in Mumtaz Rana Laskar (supra) which was held to be correct by the Full Bench of this Court in Forhana Begum Laskar (supra), has not been further appealed and, therefore, the same has attained finality in law.

15. Relying on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Forhana Begum Laskar (supra), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 152/2020 preferred by the private respondents against the order dated 15.10.2020 passed in Review Petition No. 91/2020, allowed the writ appeal so preferred by setting aside the order dated 15.10.2020 by clarifying that since the Resolution dated 21.08.2020 whereby No Confidence Motion against the present appellant had been passed cannot be said to have been "lost" within the meaning of Section 15(1) of the Act, the bar in bringing No Confidence Motion against the President within six months thereof in terms of the second proviso to Section 15(1) will not apply. It is not in dispute that no further appeal has been carried against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No. 152/2020.

16. As discussed hereinabove, the writ appeal preferred by the present appellant i.e., Writ Appeal No. 200/2020 also came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22.01.2021 by holding that the same is not maintainable in view of the ratio laid down by the co-ordinate Bench in Writ Appeal No. 152/2020.

17. Since the rigors of Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 have been held to be directory and not mandatory, any resolution adopted cannot be faulted with merely because the time limit prescribed under Section 15(1) have not been rigorously followed and further in view of the judgment and order dated 24.11.2020 in Writ Appeal No. 152/2020 which has been passed by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 885/2021 impugned in the present appeal. The learned Single Judge in the attending facts and circumstances has taken a view which is in consonance with the view taken by a Full Bench.

18. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that because need was felt that legal advice is required to be sought on the basis of the order dated 08.09.2020, time was taken. However, such action on the part of the appellant would not extend the time as provided under Section 15(1) of the Act and it is a matter of fact that there was failure on the part of the appellant to hold the meeting latest by 06.10.2020 and hence, the Secretary has acted in accordance with law. The reason put forth by the appellant and, that too, for taking legal advice is of no avail to the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment in Mosira Bibi (supra) would not be applicable to the present case is also without any basis and considering the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Forhana Begum Laskar (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition.

It goes without saying that in a democratic set up, more particularly, in a local self government like Gaon Panchayat also the majority will prevail. The notice came to be given, which was not acted upon by the appellant by not exercising the jurisdiction otherwise vested in her and, as observed in this judgment, the meeting has been conducted and the impugned resolution is passed. We do not see any procedural error in the same as well.

19. The learned Single Judge in Paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment has observed as under:

"17. As already above mentioned the petitioner had received the notice on 21.09.2020 and by virtue of Section 15(1) of the Act of 1994 the petitioner was required to hold the meeting on or before 06.10.2020 and there was no order passed whereby the running of the time as stipulated in Section 15(1) of the Act of 1994 was arrested. Further to that, Section 15(1) of the Act of 1994 is in the interest of President and/or Vice President as the case may be of the Gaon Panchayat against whom the notice of no confidence is given and hence it could be waived by such President and Vice President. The petitioner who was the President at that relevant point of time having avoided to fulfil her obligation under Section 15(1) of the Act of approving the proposal submitted by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to convene the special meeting to discuss the no-confidence-motion waived her right to hold the meeting and consequently the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to facilitate the petitioner who has voluntarily avoided to comply with the requirement of law.

18. The further contention of the petitioner that the Anchalik Panchayat did not have the jurisdiction or authority to convene the meeting held on 07.12.2020 after the lapse of the mandatory 15 days time is also misconceived in as much as after the order dated 15.10.2020, the entire process starting from the issuance of notice dated 14.09.2020 stood eclipsed till the order dated 24.11.2020 when the order dated 15.10.2020 was set aside. The process thereupon started with the issuance of the notice dated 01.12.2020 to hold the special meeting on 07.12.2020. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mosira Bibi (supra) in fact answers the said contention and same can be seen from a perusal of paragraph 15 to 18, which is quoted hereinbelow:

"15. We shall now proceed to examine as to whether the requirement of convening the special meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion within seven days from the date when the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat referred the matter to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat, means holding such meeting within the said period of seven days.

16. Section 15(1) of the Act requires the President of Anchalik Panchayat to 'convene' the meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of the information from the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. This court had the occasion to deal with the said question in Swapna Sen v. State of Assam and Ors. 2006 (2) GLT 14 (against which though petition for special leave to appeal filed, the same was dismissed on 24.3.2006) wherein it has been held that the requirement of convening the meeting by Anchalik Panchayat within seven days under Section 15(1) of the Act, does not mean actual holding of such meeting, as 'convene' means to cause to assemble to discuss the no confidence motion, i.e., directing to hold such meeting. Viewed from this angle also, even in case, the provision relating to the adherence of time schedule given in Section 15(1) of the Act, is taken to be mandatory in nature, in the instant case the appellant is not entitled to any relief, as, it is not her case that the proceeding of the special meeting dated 28.9.2005 is not valid, as the same was not convened by the Anchalik Panchayat, within seven days of referring the matter by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat.

17. Another aspect of this case is that the appellant-writ petitioner refused to approve the proposal submitted by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to convene the special meeting to discuss the notice of no confidence brought by the members, as required under the Section 15(1) of the Act. The Secretary on the failure of the appellant-writ petitioner to approve the proposal for holding such meeting referred the matter to the Anchalik Panchayat. Even if, it is taken that, the requirement of convening the meeting by the Anchalik Panchayat within seven days is mandatory in nature, interference does not follow as a matter of course, even in case of violation thereof. A mandatory provision conceived in the interest of a party can be waived by that party, whereas a mandatory provision conceived in the interest of the public cannot be waived by him. Wherever a complaint of violation of a mandatory provision is made, the court should enquire in whose interest is the provision conceived. If it is not conceived in the interest of the public, the question of waiver and/or acquiescence may arise (Ragendra Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in (1996) 5 SCC 460. The Apex Court in State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma,(1996) 3 SCC 364 has also held that even a mandatory requirement can be waived by a person concerned if such mandatory provision is conceived in his interest and not in public interest.

18. The time table given in Section 15(1) of the Act is in the interest of President and/or Vice-President as the case may be, of the Gaon Panchayat against whom the notice of no confidence is given and hence it could be waived by such President and Vice-President. The appellant having avoided to fulfil its obligation under Section 15(1) of approving the proposal submitted by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to convene the special meeting to discuss the no confidence motion, waived the requirement of holding the meeting within seven days by the Anchalik Panchayat, even if such requirement is treated as mandatory in nature. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to facilitate the appellant, who has voluntarily avoided to comply with the requirement of law."

The paragraphs of the judgment quoted above would show that the requirement to hold the meeting by the Anchalik Panchayat does not mean actually holding the meeting, as "convene" means to cause to assemble to discuss the no-confidence motion is directing to hold the meeting. Further to that it has also been held that even if it is taken that requirement of convening the meeting is mandatory in nature, interference does not follow as a matter of course, even in violation thereof. The time table given in Section 15(1) of the Act of 1994 is for the interest of the President and/or Vice President as the case may be, of the Gaon Panchayat against whom the notice of no confidence is given and hence the same can be waived by the President and Vice President. The petitioner in the case having failed to hold the meeting within 06.10.2020 have also waived the requirement of holding the meeting within 7 days by the Anchalik Panchayat.

20. We are in total agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. No other view deserves to be taken in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction.

21. The appeal being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.