1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5347 OF 2008 Rangnath s/o Kishanrao Panchal ... Petitioner Versus The Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad and others ... Respondents ... Smt. V.B. Deshmukh, holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for respondent/State ... CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE: 8th JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner was Sarpanch of village Gulkhand. A motion of no-confidence was moved against him. There were seven members of the village panchayat including the petitioner and Up- Sarpanch. Though notices were served, yet the Up-sarpanch had declined to participate in the proceedings of the meeting of no- confidence. Out of seven members, five members voted in favour of no-confidence motion, and therefore, the petitioner was shunted out of the office as no-confidence motion was passed by majority. The grievance of the petitioner is that venue of the special meeting was changed, and therefore, he was unable to attend the same. He further 2 alleges that his right to address the other five members who attended the meeting was taken away. 3. Considering the submissions and reply affidavit, it is amply clear that the meeting was not held in the office of Gram Panchayat, because it was under repairs at the relevant time and the venue was shifted in the adjoining Zilla Parishad Primary School which is at a distance of hardly 591 feets away. It is also explicit that the petitioner was duly served with the notice of the special meeting. He was very much present in the village. It does not stand to reason that he alone was not knowing the venue of the special meeting, whereas other five members were intimated about the same. The report of Gram Sevak revealed that the petitioner was also given notice regarding the change of venue. Apart from that, there is no right provided under the relevant Law to give opportunity of changing minds of the other members. The Up-sarpanch had refused to accept the notice, and therefore, a panchnama was drawn (Exh. - B). Thus, there were actually six members including the petitioner who could have participated in the special meeting. The five had already voted against him. No prejudice appears to have been caused to the petitioner due to the change of venue. Hence, the petition is meritless and as such dismissed. ( V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. ) srm/wp/5347/08 3 4