(1) WP. 4075.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4075 OF 2010 Sangitabai w/o Shankarrao Tapase .. Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. G.R. Ingole Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, AGP. for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 14TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard learned counsel. The petitioner was Sarpanch of the village. No confidence motion was passed against her on earlier occasion. That was challenged and that the matter was remanded for fresh inquiry. Contention of the petitioner was that one of the member by name Gangaram Pawar was disqualified from casting vote in the no confidence motion because he was held disqualified. The Collector found that the disqualification was not incurred by Gangaram Pawar as on date of no-confidence motion which was discussed in the meeting dated 18.8.2008. The contention of the petitioner was therefore, rejected and she was held disqualified for contesting election (2) WP. 4075.2010 of Sarpanch. She challenged the judgment and award of the Collector by filing an Appeal no. CR/134/2010. The learned Divisional Commissioner dismissed her appeal. 2] Counsel would submit that hearing was taken before the learned Divisional Commissioner in the absence of the Advocate representing the petitioner and the date fixed for hearing was not known to him and as such he had gone out of station. He would submit that the petitioner is denied opportunity of hearing. He would further submit that no confidence motion could not be passed because as on the date of meeting, there were 7 posts of members, 1 lying vacant and therefore, out of 7, the coram of 3/4th was not fulfilled due to alleged voting of 5 persons in favour of the no-confidence motion. Neither argument appears to be appellable. 3] There is no copy of Roznama to infer that the date of the hearing was not known to the Advocate of the petitioner and there is no justification for his remaining absent at the time of hearing of the appeal. The petitioner probably wanted to gain time by raising of technical objection and when it is found that Gangaram Pawar was eligible to vote during the meeting of no confidence, it is explicit that majority of the members of the Village Panchayat tendered their vote in favour of the no-confidence (3) WP. 4075.2010 motion, except the petitioner herself. The coram of 3/4th was fulfilled as the coram required is of “Total number of members for the time being” which imply that those who were the members of the Village Panchayat at the time of the discussion of the no- confidence motion and the vacancy cannot be taken into account for the purpose of such coram. This being the legal position, I find that there is no substance in the Petition. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp