( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5259 OF 2008 Rukhmanbai w/o Sarangdhar Jadhav PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. K.F. Shingare, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Lodhe, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. H.V. Patil, advocate for respondents No. 6 to 9. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th February, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The petitioner was Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Kanadgaon/Mahamadpur. A no confidence motion was moved against her by the members of the Village Panchayat. The motion was tabled for discussion in a meeting called on 26-05-2008. The meeting was conducted under chairmanship of Tahsildar, Khultabad. Out of the ( 2 ) seven (7) posts, two (2) posts were lying vacant and, therefore, there were only five (5) members including the petitioner. Except the petitioner, all the other four (4) members supported the no confidence motion and, therefore, it was passed. She was, therefore, disqualified and ousted from the office. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that there was no voting, there were no deliberations and discussion regarding the no confidence motion and moreover, she was not given due opportunity to explain her stance. 4. It appears that while preparing the minutes (Ex-A). Details regarding the discussion held in the meeting are not stated. It is not stated that the petitioner was given opportunity to explain her stand. This Court in “Sanjay s/o Pandurang Chavan and others v. State of Maharashtra and others” 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 596, held that mere writing of minutes with certain deficiencies will not be a ground to continue the Sarpanch to hold the post, though he/she has lost confidence of the majority of members. In the present ( 3 ) case, there appears technical error in preparing minutes of the meeting. The fact, however, remains that four (4) members were in favour of no confidence motion and the petitioner was singled out. There is also no substance in the contention that she was not given due opportunity to explain her stand because she was present at the meeting and moreover, she participated in the proceedings. She casted her vote in favour of herself and naturally, she had the opportunity to explain her stand. The reply-affidavit shows that she was given due opportunity. In any case, this is a disputed question of fact. 5. Mr. Shingare seeks to rely on certain observations in “Ashok Krishnakant Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra and others” 2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 197. The fact situation in the present case stands on different footing in as much as the petitioner herself was present at the meeting. She exercised her valuable right to cast the vote against the no confidence motion. All said and done, when out of five (5), four (4) members had decided to pass the no confidence motion, since beginning, and ( 4 ) voted against the petitioner, it is difficult to appreciate that she was not having opportunity to change their minds prior to or during the course of meeting. It may be noticed that already, the next elections are over. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp5259-08