1 WP5238OF10.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5238 OF 2010 Sumita Sampatrao Daundkar, .. Petitioner -versus Shri.Santosh Sukhdeo Daundkar and ors .. Respondents. Mr. U. P. Warunjikar, for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Sadavarte for the Respondent Nos 1 to 6. Ms P.S. Cardozo, AGP for respondent Nos 7 to 10. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. DATED: 22nd July, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sadavarte, learned counsel for the respondent Nos l to 6 and learned AGP Cardozo, for respondent Nos 7 to 10. 2. The petition pertains to the no confidence motion u/s 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short called as “the said Act”). The Village Panchayat, Karanjawane consists of 7 members. In the General Elections, which was held in the year 2007-08, the petitioner was elected as member and subsequently as Sarpanch of the said village. Out of 7 members, 6 members, on 2 WP5238OF10.sxw 30.12.2009 gave requisition to the Tahsildar, requiring HIM to convene the Special meeting to discuss “no confidence motion” against the petitioner. The Tahsildar thereafter on the same day, by issuing notice, convened the Special meeting of the members of the village Panchayat on 5.01.2010. The Special Meeting was attended by all the 7 members including the present petitioner and no confidence motion was passed by 2/3rd majority. The petitioner disputed the validity of the Special Meeting as well as no confidence motion passed therein by filing dispute Application before the Collector. The Collector after hearing respective parties dismissed the same. The petitioner, thereafter approached Divisional Commissioner by way of an appeal. The same was also dismissed and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not served with the notice of the Special meeting alongwith requisition dated 30th December, 2009. He submitted that the Notice of said meeting was received by the Petitioner on 6.1.2010 ie after the Special meeting was held. He further submitted that in the absence of notice of requisition, the petitioner could not defend herself in the Special Meeting which was convened to discuss the no confidence motion against her. He relied on the two judgments of learned Single Judge of this Court, in 3 WP5238OF10.sxw case of Indubai Vedu Khairnar -vs- State of Maharashtra and ors 2003 (2) Bom C.R. 239 and B Budhiya Dayaram Jamunkar -vs- Additional Commissioner, Amravati and ors , 2005 (5) Mh L. J. 835. 4. Mr. Sadavate, learned counsel for respondent and Ms Cardozo, learned AGP, supported the impugned order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I do not find any merit in the petition. It is true that notice of the Special meeting alongwith requisition of no confidence sent by Registered Post, was received by the petitioner on 6.1.2010, however, the record discloses that the petitioner during the relevant time was not in her house and therefore on 1st January, 2010, Notice alongwith the requisition was affixed under Panchnama on the conspicuous part of petitioner’s house. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot make a grievance that the Notice of the special meeting alongwith requisition was not served on her. In both the judgments of Budhia -vs Addl. Commissioner and Indubai Vedu Khairnar -vs- State of Maharashtra (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel, it was held that the notice of the special meeting alongwith copy of requisition is required to be given to the Sarpanch. There is no dispute about the proposition, however, in the present case the petitioner had constructive notice and therefore, she can not make a capital of the fact that the 4 WP5238OF10.sxw Notice sent by RPAD was served on her on 6.1.2010. Be that as it may, the present petitioner attended the Special Meeting and participated in the discussion of no confidence motion. The petitioner has lost confidence of 2/3rd majority. In democracy, the majority opinion will have to be honoured. In the circumstances, the petitioner has no merit and the same is dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)