1 wp10943.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10943 OF 2010 Sow. Renuka w/o Prabhakar Mulgir, Age: 25 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Dattawadi, Tq. Gangakhed, Disttrict Parbhani. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The Presiding Officer/Tahsildar, Gangakhed, Taluka Gangakhed, District Parbhani & others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. K.B. Jadhavar, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 3 to 7. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 11TH OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 10-11-2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal 2 wp10943.10 No. CR.50/2010. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that, without serving notice of "No Confidence" on the petitioner, the proceedings were conducted. Therefore, according to him, service of notice on the petitioner is mandatory and in absence of service of notice, the entire subsequent proceedings or meeting conducted by the Tahasildar is illegal. Therefore, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, on this ground alone the petition should succeed. He further submits that, even though it is observed by the appellate authority that notice was served on husband of the petitioner, such service is not valid service as contemplated under relevant rules. Therefore, writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents relying upon the reasons assigned by the appellate 3 wp10943.10 authority and also by the Collector, would submit that this writ petition may not be entertained. 4. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. From perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the appellate authority, it is abundantly clear that, the appellate authority has perused the record from the office of the Tahasildar and found that notice for the meeting scheduled to be held on 24-08-2010 was served upon the husband of the petitioner. Therefore, ground taken by the petitioner that notice of the Special Meeting was not served on the petitioner, cannot be accepted. The view taken by the appellate authority that out of seven members, five have voted in favour of "No Confidence Motion", and in a democratic set up majority view cannot be defeated merely on technicalities, needs no interference. 5. In the first place notice of special meeting was served upon the husband of the 4 wp10943.10 petitioner and secondly, out of seven members present in the meeting, five members have voted against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that, subsequent to passing "No Confidence Motion", the election for the post of Sarpanch has been taken place. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the writ petition and devoid of any merits, same stands rejected. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/OCT11