-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1624 OF 2010 Siddharam Hariba Dharmsale. ..Petitioner. Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Pune & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. M. Sabrad with Mr. Yuvraj Patil for the petitioner. Mr. I. M. Khairdi for respondent nos. 6, 8, 9 to 11. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : April 5, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. S. M. Sabrad, learned counsel for for the petitioner, Mr. I. M. Khairdi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6, 8, 9 to 11 and Mr. R. M. Patne, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner was duly elected Sarpanch of village Kazikanbas, taluka – Akkalkot, district – Solapur. The village panchayat consists of 9 members. 7 members of the panchayat requisitioned the Tehsildar on 7th December 2009 requesting him to call special meeting to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner – Sarpanch. Tehsildar accordingly called a special meeting of the Grampanchayat on 11th December 2009 to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner. In the said special meeting, no confidence motion was carried by 2/3rd majority, i.e 6 : 0. 3. The petitioner thereafter disputed the validity of the special meeting by -: 2 :- filing dispute application before the Collector, Solapur under section 35(3B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 [for short “the said Act”]. The Collector, however, dismissed the petitioner’s application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner under section 35(3C) of the said Act and the same is also dismissed. Therefore, the present writ petition. 4. The only point argued by Mr. Sabrad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the requisition was not sent to the petitioner in compliance with the provisions of section 35 of the said Act. He has not disputed the fact that the petitioner was duly in receipt of notice calling the special meeting. I do not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Sabrad in view of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Yamunabai Laxman Chavan & Others v/s. Sarubai Tukaram Jadhav & Ors, reported in 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 1004. Learned Single Judge of this Court held that mere non furnishing of copy of the requisition alongwith the copy of notice as required by Rule 2(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpanch and Upa­Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 would not invalidate the requisition. It is further held that the provisions of Rule2(2) of the said Rules are directory in nature. 5. In a democratic set­up, the will of majority will have to be respected. The petitioner has lost 2/3rd majority and therefore he is not entitled to hold the post of Sarpanch. In the circumstances petition deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. -: 3 :- 6. Mr. Sabrad, learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage requested for continuation of the ad­interim relief granted earlier in this matter for a further period of three weeks. Since no confidence motion against the petitioner is carried by 2/3rd majority, I am not inclined to continue the interim relief. (R.V. MORE, J.)