1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1180 OF 2010 Deepak Deorao Pawar ..Petitioner VERSUS State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents ... Shri S.K.Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner, Smt. Sunita D.Shelke, AGP for respondents 1 to 4 and Shri S.V.Mundhe, Advocate for respondents 5 to 10. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH,J. Dated : 17.2.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 7.1.2010 in appeal No. DB/Desk-2/ZPVP. The petitioner was officiating as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned. No confidence motion was moved by the respondents / members of the village panchayat in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 ("said Act"). A special meeting was convened by the Tahsildar on 7.8.2009. Notices were issued and 2 served on the members. Meeting accordingly had taken place. No confidence motion was passed by majority. Minutes were recorded. This proceeding was subjected to dispute under section 35 of the said Act before the learned Additional Collector, Parbhani. Said dispute came to be dismissed on 26.10.2009. Said order was subjected before the learned Divisional Commissioner in an appeal. It also came to be dismissed. 4. Two contentions were raised before the learned Divisional Commissioner. Firstly; there was no service of notice of special meeting on the petitioner and secondly; there was no discussion for no confidence motion in the special meeting convened on 7.8.2009. 5. Copy of the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner is on record. On the first point, the learned Divisional Commissioner has recorded that as the petitioner was not at home, notice was served by pasting the same on door of his house and panchanama to that effect was recorded. Learned Divisional Commissioner has also noted that this issue of non service of notice was not raised before the learned Additional Collector. On these grounds, the contention of the petitioner was not accepted by the learned Divisional Commissioner. On the point of debate, the learned Divisional Commissioner has believed the record maintained by the Tahsildar and dis-believed the contention of the petitioner 6. Indisputably, the motion was carried out by 2/3rd majority. 3 The principles underlining the no confidence motion require to be taken into consideration. Village Panchayats are established in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. It is local self government. This body is expected to govern the residents of village and also supposed to take care of availability of civic amenities to the residents of the village. Person holding the position of Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch, if looses faith reposed by the parties, has to give a way to some other incumbent who is able to regain or enjoy the confidence of the members of the village panchanyat concerned. Indisputably, the motion is carried in accordance with the scheme of the Act. The fact of service of notice, as accepted by the two authorities below, cannot be unsettled by this Court while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Further, according to the findings of both the authorities below, the petitioner was not present in the meeting and therefore, no ground can be raised by the petitioner that there was no debate in the said meeting. The petition is devoid of merits. 7. In the result, Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. ( S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) ... akl