-: 1 :- wp-3435/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3435 OF 2011 Shankar Ganpat Vagve. ..Petitioner. Versus Govind Ganpat Power and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Balwant Patole for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for R-10, 11 & 12 Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : May 5, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Petition pertains to the proceedings of No Confidence Motion under the provisions of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The grampanchayat of village Kasarwadi consists of 9 members. Out of these 9 members, 7 members gave requisition to the Tehsildar to convene a special meeting to discuss the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner who is Sarpanch of the said village. Accordingly, Tehsildar convened the meeting on 25/11/2010. In this meeting 7 members were present. No Confidence Motion was passed unanimously. The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the said special meeting and validity of the resolution by filing an application under section 35. The said application was dismissed. srp -: 2 :- wp-3435/11 The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal under section 35 (c) before the Commissioner, same was also dismissed. The petitioner has therefore filed present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given opportunity to speak in the said meeting convened to discuss the No Confidence Motion against him. This objection has no merit inasmuch as the minutes of the said meeting disclose that the petitioner did not attend the said meeting. It is not disputed that the petitioner received notice of the meeting alongwith copy of requisition. Therefore, in this regard, the petitioner cannot make grievance since he deliberately remained absent for the said meeting. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner attended the said meeting, however, the Tehsildar has not recorded his appearance in the minutes of meeting. Upon perusal of the record of the proceedings held before the Collector and Commissioner, it can be seen that this point was not raised before those authorities and for the first time this objection is raised in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that Tehsildar did not follow the mandatory procedure for conducting and holding the special meetings. This point is also without any -: 3 :- wp-3435/11 substance. After going through minutes of the meeting and the orders impugned in this petition, I find that the due procedure is followed. In a democratic set up the Will of the majority has to be respected. The petitioner having lost confidence of majority of 2/3rd members, cannot remain on the post of Sarpanch. I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition under extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)