1 (WP 1088 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1088 OF 2011 Sonubai Mahadeo Vinchure ...Petitioner Vs. Lakappa Govind Akkalwade and Ors...Respondents ----- Mr.I.M. Khairdi for Petitioner Mr.A.I. Patel-AGP for Respondent Nos. 8 and 10 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 21ST FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was appointed as Surpanch on 1.9.2010 after the person who was elected as a surpanch expired on 29.10.2010, the remaining 7 members made a requisition to the Tahasildar for passing no confidence motion against the Petitioner. Accordingly, meeting was held on 4.11.2010 and no confidence motion was passed against the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed a dispute before the Additional Collector, Solapur. However, his application was dismissed on 3.12.2010. Thereafter the Petitioner filed 2 (WP 1088 of 2011) an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division. The appeal was also rejected on 17.1.2011. It is submitted that meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held on 10.2.2008 and 9 members were elected. The Petitioner was elected as Deputy Sarpanch and after the surpanch expired, the Petitioner continued to officiate as surpancha. It is submitted that within 1 month and 28 days, a requisition was made for passing the no confidence motion. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner invited my attention to the reasons which were given in the said notice. It is submitted that within a span of time i.e. 1 month and 28 days, it is not possible for the members to come to the conclusion that the work done by the Petitioner was not in the interest of the Grampanchayat. It is submitted that the said application was made with a malafide intention. It is then submitted that out of remaining 7 members, one was disqualified since the cast validity certificate was held invalid by the Cast Scrutiny Committee. It is then submitted that in view of the section 35, no confidence motion has to be passed by 2/3 majority and not by a simple majority. Thirdly, it is submitted that one of the 3 (WP 1088 of 2011) person had made a request that the voting should be by a secret ballot. However, other members did not support him. It is, therefore, submitted that the said person may have voted in favour of the Petitioner if the secret ballot was permitted. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has invited my attention to the orders passed by both the authorities and submitted that this aspect was not considered by both the authorities. 3. In my view, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be accepted. I have perused the notice which was given to the Tahasildar. The notice clearly state the three reasons for which no confidence motion was to be passed against the Petitioner. The law on this point is quite well settled if the committee has lost confidence on the surpanch that is more than sufficient for the purpose of passing no confidene motion against him and it is not necessary to give specific reason or incident which led the committee to come to the said conclusion. So far as the disqualification of one of the members is concerned, even if this contention is accepted, all the other remaining members have voted against the Petitioner and, therefore, by 2/3rd majority, no confidence motion 4 (WP 1088 of 2011) was passed. So far as the third contention is concerned that the voting was not done by a secret ballot, in my view, there is no provision either under the Act or rules which prescribes that even if one member requests for secret ballot, the person conducting the meeting has to accept the request. Therefore, submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. Both the authorities below have given cogent reasons after taking into consideration the submissions made by the Petitioner herein and therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)