1. Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of the orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 16-10-1996 and 24-1-1997 passed in W. P. No. 2473/96 and W. P. No. 3890/96 respectively; therefore, they are disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. L.PA. No. 225/96 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16-10-1996 passed in W. P. No. 2473/96 and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition relying on his earlier decision given in the case of Dhumadandhin v. State of M.P., 1997 (2) MPLJ 175.

3. The brief facts giving in LPA No. 225/96 are taken into consideration. A notice to convene the meeting of the Gram Panchayat to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner was given on 16-5-1996. It is averred that on the basis of the aforesaid notice the prescribed authority fixed the date of meeting for 17-6-1996 and on the said date, no confidence motion was carried out by the required majority. Therefore, a petition (W.P. No. 2473/96) was filed challenging the passing of no confidence motion on the ground that the meeting was convened after expiry of 15 days under Rule 3(3) of the M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as the "Niyam of 1994" in brevity). Therefore, the question for consideration was whether Rule 3(3) is a mandatory or a directory. There is difference of opinion on this issue. Prasad, J., in the case of Dhumadandhin (supra), took a view that Rule 3(3) is directory. The same view has been followed by Dharmadhikari, J., in subsequent decision given in the case of Ramlal Dayal v. State of M.P. decided on 11-3-1997 and in Anr. decision given in the case of Smt. Baby Raja v. State of M.P. and Ors., decided on 2-4-1997.

4. Our attention was also invited to a decision given by D. P. S. Chauhan, J., in Manbai v. State of M.P. and Ors., decided on 10-2-1998 in W. P. No. 657/97, wherein Rule 3(3) came up for interpretation and in that the question was with regard to 7 days notice before the meeting came up for interpretation and the Lordship had an occasion to interpret the words 'not less than' and in that context, the Lordship held that it is mandatory. Though the question with regard to calling the meeting within 15 days did not fall for consideration, the case was only with regard to that every member of Panchayat concerned should be given 7 days notice before meeting and this expression, the Lordship has held it to be mandatory. In this connection, reference was made to a decision given in the case of Chambers v. Smith, 13 LJ Ex. 25 and to a decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer Motors Ltd. v. Nagercoil Municipal Council, AIR 1967 SC 684 and their Lordships referred to Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition, p. 351, wherein the question 'not less than' appeared and it has been interpreted that some days are to intervene, both the terminal days are excluded from the computation, and their lordships held that 7 days notice means seven days clear notice of the meeting. Lordship also referred Section 21 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 (in short "Act") to mean that the meeting which has been convened for no confidence motion can also be adjourned because the authority which has been convened the meeting; can adjourn the meeting also for good reasons.

5. Our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in Hargovind Johari v. Zilla Panchayat, 1996 MPLJ 409, wherein Doabia, J., has considered this aspect and interpreted Rule 3(3) as mandatory and it was held that once the meeting has been convened then it cannot be adjourned and if it is adjourned beyond 15 days then such meeting will be invalid as Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994, is mandatory. In this connection, the Lordship has considered the decision given in Shankerlal v. Collector, Mandsaur, 1975 MPLJ 190 and distinguished the same that the rules which were framed under the M.P. Panchayat Act, 1962 and under the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, are materially different; therefore, the ratio given in Shankerlal's case (supra) will not have bearing on these Rules.

6. Our attention was again invited to a decision of this Court given in Lakhan Singh Ratiram Yadav v. State of M. P., 1998 (1) MPLJ 682 (Hon. Tej Shanker, J.) and in that case, Rule 3(3) did not come directly for interpretation because the meeting was convened within 15 days. But, the question was that meeting was adjourned and therefore, the question was whether the meeting can be adjourned beyond 15 days or not and in that context, the Lordship held that the adjourned meeting is in continuation of the original meeting and the prescribed authority can adjourn the meeting. Therefore, in the light of conflicting decisions of this Court, we embark on the enquiry that what should be correct interpretation of Rule 3(3) whether it is mandatory or directory and whether the meeting so fixed can be adjourned or not.

7. The Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, was enacted by act no. 1 of 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1994') Chapter I deals with preliminary definitions etc. Chapter II deals with Gram Sabha and Chapter III deals with Establishment of Panchayats and Section 21 of the Act of 1994 deals with no confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch, which reads as under :

'Section 21. No confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. -

(1) On a motion of no confidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed by majority of not less than three fourth of the Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than two third of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office forthwith.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder a Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no confidence is discussed against him. Such meeting shall be convened in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be presided over by an officer of the Government as the Prescribed Authority may appoint. The Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak at, or otherwise to take part in, the proceeding of the meeting.

(3) No confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of

(i) one year from the date on which the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch enter their respective office;

(ii) six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, expires;

(iii) one year from the date on which previous motion of no confidence was rejected.' Section 21 says that no confidence motion shall be passed by majority of not less than three fourth of the panchas present and voting and such majority is more than two third of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being- Sub-section (2) of Section 21 says that a Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no confidence is discussed against him. Such meeting shall be convened in such a manner as may be prescribed by an officer of the Government as the Prescribed Authority may appoint. The Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak at, or otherwise to take part in, the proceeding of the meeting. Sub-section (3) of Section 21 says that no confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of one year from the date on which the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch enter their respective office or/and six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, expires and one year from the date on which previous motion of no confidence was rejected. Chapter IV deals with conduct of election and Chapter V deals with conduct of business and the procedure at the meeting of the Panchayat. Section 44 of the Act of 1994 deals with procedure of meeting, which reads as under :

'Section 44. Procedure of meeting. - (1) Subject to the provision of this Act, the procedure of meeting and conduct of business of a Panchayat shall be such as may be prescribed.

(2) The chairperson of a Panchayat and other members of a Panchayat whether or not chooses by direct election from territorial constituencies shall have the right to vote in the meeting of the Panchayats.

(3) The quorum for a meeting of Panchayat shall be one half of the members constituting the Panchayat for the time being. If there be no quorum present at a meeting, the presiding authority shall, adjourn the meeting to such date and hour as may be fixed by it. A notice of the meeting so fixed shall be posted in the office of Panchayat. No quorum shall be necessary, for such postponed meeting, and no new subject for consideration may be brought before such meeting.

(4) The President or Sarpanch shall call a meeting of Zila Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Gram Panchayat, as the case may be, at least once every month. If the President or Sarpanch fails to call the meeting in any month, the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat or Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, as the case may be, shall issue a notice of the meeting of the Panchayat concerned as soon as twenty five days elapse after the date of the last meeting.

(5) A report about the income and expenditure of the Gram Panchayat between the period of last meeting and the current meeting as well as the cumulative income and expenditure in the current financial year up to the current meeting shall be placed before the Gram Panchayat, in addition to any other subjects, by the Secretary of Gram Panchayat and such report shall be discussed by the Gram Panchayat. In case of Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat such report shall be placed by the Chief Executive Officer in its meeting once in three months. The reports shall be prepared in such manner as may be prescribed.

(6) If more than fifty percent of the members of the Panchayat give requisition in writing for a special meeting of the Panchayat, the President or Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall call such a meeting within seven days of receipt of such requisition. If the President or Sarpanch as the case may be, fails to call the meeting on such requisition the members who have given requisition of a special meeting may call the meeting themselves and thereupon the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat or the secretary of the Gram Panchayat as the case may be, shall issue notice of the meeting.

(7) If the President or the Sarpanch, as the case may be, fails on at least three occasions to act in accordance with Sub-section (4) or Sub-section (6), he shall be liable to be removed from his office Under section 40 and the provisions of section 40 shall be applicable to him, who has been so removed.' Sub-section (3) of Section 44 says that the meeting can be adjourned for want of quorum, but notice to this effect shall have to be issued. Chapter VI deals with functions of Panchayats, Chapter VII deals with fund and property of Panchayat and Chapter VIII deals with establishment, budget and accounts of Panchayat. Chapter IX deals with taxation and recovery of claims, Chapter X deals with control and Chapter XI deals with rules and byelaws. section 95 deals with power to make rules, which reads as under:

'Section 95. Power to make rules. - (1) The State Government may make rule for carrying out the purposes of this Act.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such rules may provide for all or any of the matters which under any provision of this Act, are required to be prescribed or to be provided for by rules.

(3) All rules shall be subject to the condition of previous publication.

(4) All rules shall be laid on the table of Legislative Assembly.

(5) In making any rule, the State Government may direct that a breach thereof shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred fifty rupees and in the case of continuing breach with a further fine which may extend to five rupees for eyery day during which the breach continues after the first conviction.' According to Section 95, the State Government has been given to power to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. In pursuance of that, the State Government has framed rules known as M. P. Panchayat (Procedure of Meeting and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1994' in brevity) and Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas prastava) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Niyam 1994' in brevity). Rule 3 of Niyam, 1994, lays down that any member of the Panchayats shall give a notice to the prescribed authority in the form appended to these Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 says that on receiving the notice, the prescribed authority shall sign, date and time of receipt of that notice and he shall acknowledge the receipt. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 says that on receiving such notice, the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to sections 21(3), 28(3) and 35(3), as the case may be and he shall fix the date, time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, 'which shall not be more than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice.' This notice shall be despatched by him to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting. Therefore, the requirement of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 is that the meeting of the Panchayat for consideration of no confidence motion has to be called within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and each member of the Panchayat concerned should get seven days clear notice before the meeting. Therefore, the question before us is whether Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 is to be construed directory or mandatory. As quoted above, there is a difference of opinion among the Judges on this issue.

8. We have bestowed our best of consideration on this provisions and we are of the opinion that 15 days notice has to be construed as mandatory. The expression is that he shall fix the date, time and place for meeting which shall not more than 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, meaning thereby that it is mandatory because the word 'shall' has been used directing the prescribed authority that he shall call meeting within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. In democracy, the rule of law is supreme and once the law says that such important meeting like motion of no confidence should be convened within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, then it should be given its natural meaning and the intention of the Legislature is that the meeting shall be convened within 15 days. Therefore, the expression 'shall be convened within 15 days' has to be interpreted as mandatory and it cannot be construed as directory. It is a different matter that the Court may not interfere in the given case, if it is satisfied that the person has lost the confidence because majority members have voted against him, but that shall not deter from the fact that the provisions should be treated as director. Once the mandate of the law is that the meeting shall be called within 15 days then there is no go from this. No delay could be caused by the prescribed authority, he is under an obligation to convene the meeting within the time fixed by law.

9. In the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by G. P. Singh, Sixth Edition, 1996, at page 259, with reference to the decision of Hon. Supreme Court, G. P. Singh observed:

"The use of word 'shall' raises a presumption that the particular provision is imperative, but this prima facie inference may be rebutted by other considerations such as object and scope of the enactment and the consequences flowing from such construction."

Therefore, it has to be construed that in what context, this expression has been used whether the word 'shall' in the present case has been used as a directory or a mandatory. Since it is a matter of no confidence motion, which is one of the very important part of our democracy that a person, who has lost the majority, has no right to rule. Therefore, this provision has to be construed in this background. Since the right to rule depends in democracy on the basis of votes and the incumbent has lost the vote, he cannot be allowed to run the Government; therefore, the Legislature in its wisdom has framed the rules and laid down that the prescribed authority is under an obligation to convene the meeting of no confidence motion within 15 days. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the expression 'shall' be construed as a mandatory in the present case and not directory as has been interpreted by the learned Single Judge hence the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not appear to be well founded and the view taken in Hargovind Johari's case (supra), appears to be correct.

10. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the meeting fixed for no confidence motion can be adjourned or not. We have already quoted Section 21 of the Act of 1994. We have also quoted Section 44 of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. If the meeting of no confidence motion has been convened then can it be adjourned or not. Section 21 of the M. P. General Clauses Act, 1957, which is relevant for our purposes, reads as under:

"Section 21. Power to make, to include, power to add, to amend, vary or rescind orders, etc. - Where, by any Madhya Pradesh Act, a power to issue notification, orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanctions and conditions, if any, to add to amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bylaws so issued."

Therefore, invoking Section 21 of the Act of 1957, which enables the authority which passes the orders can revoke, amend, rescind; therefore, the prescribed authority which fixes the date of no-confidence, can adjourn it also. As quoted above Section 21 or Section 44 of the Act or the rules framed thereunder, nowhere prohibit the prescribed authority to adjourn the meeting. Therefore, the meeting of no-confidence motion can be adjourned. It is not right to say that if the meeting has been once convened within the statutory period, then it cannot be adjourned, the Rule 3(3) will not bar it. If it is to be interpreted that if meeting of no confidence is convened within 15 days and on account of law and order problem or for other unavoidable reasons, the motion cannot be debated then the Bar of 15 days under Rule 3(3) will come in the way that the meeting cannot be convened that will amount to shifting the democratic process. Therefore, we hold that under Rule 3(3), the convening of meeting within 15 days is must, it is a mandatory and if the meeting which is convened within 15 days could not proceed because of the reason beyond control of the prescribed authority, it can be adjourned and the bar of Rule 3(3) will not come in the way.

11. In this connection, a reference may be made to the Division Bench decision of this Court given in the case of Gajpatilal Chandrakar v. State of M. P. decided on 21st June, 1995 in W. P. No. 944/95, wherein the question was whether special meeting of the Municipal Corporation Under Section 28 can be adjourned or not. In that case, the Division Bench held that Under Section 28 of the Municipal Corporation Act, Special meeting can be adjourned. After examining the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, it was observed :

"This contention has no merit as mentioned above that there is no exception made Under Section 31 that the meeting convened Under Section 28 cannot be adjourned. Hence, we do not find any merit in this argument that the meeting convened Under Section 28 would not be adjourned and consequently, the election of the committees cannot be said to be illegal."

Therefore, it is wrong to say that once the meeting is called for debate of no-confidence motion, it cannot be adjourned. However, the view taken in Hargovind's case (supra), which is contrary to the view taken by the Division Bench, cannot be said to be a good law.

12. However, in the present case, since no-confidence motion has been passed by majority; therefore, we will not like to interfere in such writ petition on facts irrespective of fact that the meeting was not called within 15 days as the petitioner/appellant has already lost the majority; therefore, we will not issue a direction for setting aside of that so called passing of no-confidence motion.

13. In LPA No. 162/97, an additional ground has already been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not given opportunity to speak. So far as the factual aspect of matter is concerned, we do not propose to go into the controversy. Learned counsel has specially invited our attention to Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act of 1994, which says that the Sarpanch or the Up-sarpanch, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak at, or otherwise to take part in the proceeding of the meeting. In this connection, our attention was invited to a decision of this Court given in the case of Balramdas v. Commissioner, Raipur, 1984 MPWN 336, at page 391 and in that, the old provision of Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1981, have been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court that by virtue of the provision of Section 18(c) of the M. P. Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1981, confers a right on the Sarpanch to speak at or otherwise to take part in the proceeding of the meeting in which a motion of no confidence is discussed against him, and it was observed :

"This right is not an empty formality, in as much as, it enables the Sarpanch to give out his point of view and, if possible, to dissuade the Panchas from voting against him."

There is no two opinion that the right to address the House can not be denied to such person as it is also a valuable right. Therefore, this is a mandatory that such Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch should be given a right to speak when some motion is brought against him. However, in the present case, whether such opportunity was given or not, is a question of fact and the learned Single Judge has found that the proceeding were duly signed by the appellant and she did not raise any protest and it is also found that she did not lodge any complaint that she was not permitted by the officer to speak on motion of no-confidence; therefore, no relief on this aspect can be given to the appellant. However, when majority has passed no-confidence and in democracy majority accounts, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Hence, both the appeals (LPA No. 225/96/and LPA No. 162/97) are dismissed.