-: 1 :- wp-8389-11 Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8389 OF 2011 . Sou. Shailaja Ishwara Chowdhary ..Petitioner. Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division,Pune. .. Respondents. Mr Balwant Patole, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr R.M. Patne, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr A.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent nos. 5 to 13. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : 12th October, 2011. P. C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Petition pertains to no confidence motion proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat, Malwadi, taluka Palus, -: 2 :- wp-8389-11 Ladda District Sangli, on 17.11.2010. The village Panchayat, Malawadi, consists of 13 members. On 7.7.2011 ten members of the village Panchayat gave requisition to the Tahsildar, requesting him to convene a special meeting to discuss no confidence motion against the petitioner. In accordance with this requisition, a special meeting was convened and held on 13.7.2011. In this meeting, no confidence motion was carried by 2/3rd majority, namely ten supported the no confidence motion, whereas three members opposed the no confidence motion.The petitioner disputed legality and validity of no confidence motion, as well as special meeting by filing Dispute Application before the Collector, under the provisions of Section 35 (3)(b) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. However, the same was dismissed. Appeal filed under Section 35 (3) (c) against the order of the Collector was also dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner Pune Division, Pune by the order dated 28.9.2011, which is impugned in this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that requisition must be given in the Format of notice of the motion of no confidence. He further submits that -: 3 :- wp-8389-11 Ladda requisition must contain the reasons for no confidence against the Sarpanch, however, there are no reasons given in the requisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice of the special meeting given to the petitioner was not accompanied with copy of the requisition. Lastly, it is submitted that the voting was done through the secret ballot papers. I do not find any merit in any of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have perused the requisition given by the ten members to the Tahsildar on 7.7.2011. Said requisition is in proper Format, which clearly mentions the reasons for no confidence, viz. the petitioner is not taking other members into confidence. The first objection, thus, is without any substance. As far as second objection that copy of the notice of requisition was not given to the petitioner is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner attended the special meeting and even participated in it. Apart from this, the concurrent finding of fact is also recorded by the lower Authorities that the petitioner received the notice of the special meeting along with copy of the requisition. The second objection is, thus -: 4 :- wp-8389-11 Ladda overruled. As regards the last objection, the voting was taken by ballot papers at the request of the petitioner herself, which is in accordance with law. No capital can be made on this count also. Taking over all facts and circumstances into consideration, I do not find any error in the impugned order. The petitioner has lost confidence of the 2/3rd majority of the members. In a democratic set up, will of the majority is required to be respected. In view of this, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is accordingly dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)