( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4158 OF 2010 Smt. Ashabai w/o Dattu Patil PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. N.E. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th May, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Hirapur. The contention of the petitioner is that she had proceeded on leave and, therefore, was unable to participate in the meeting of No Confidence Motion. She raised dispute under section 35 (3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act when the No Confidence Motion was passed by majority. It appears that the petitioner inter alia contended that she was required ( 2 ) to go out of station and therefore, on 07-11-2009, she had submitted an application for leave. 3. Perusal of her petition filed before the Additional Collector reveals that she categorically alleged that such leave applied by her was granted and, therefore, in her absence, the No Confidence Motion could not have been taken up for discussion and as such, the resolution is illegal. The learned Additional Collector found that the leave was not at all granted by the competent authority. The petitioner failed to establish that she was granted valid leave as such. The appellate authority also rejected her contention on the ground that mere filing of application for leave would not suffice the purpose and that unless such leave is granted by the competent authority, it could not be said that the petitioner had proceeded on leave. 4. The petitioner failed to prove that her leave application was duly submitted and forwarded to the competent authority and moreover, it was granted by the Block Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Parola. There is absolutely no record to show that Upa-Sarpanch was placed incharge in the office of Sarpanch due to grant of leave in ( 3 ) favour of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petition is devoid of merits and as such, dismissed in limini. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp4158-2010