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.
