(1) WP 7937.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7937 OF 2011 Balaji Gyanba Kamble and anr. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Nitin B. Ghute, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. J.R. Patil, Advocate for the respondent no.9 ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 11TH OCTOBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 24.09.2011, thereby dismissing the Appeal filed by the present petitioners, arising out of the order passed by the respondent no.3-Collector dated 17.08.2011, thereby dismissing the dispute filed by the present petitioners, challenging the show cause notice passed in favour of the present petitioners. 3. The present petitioners were elected as the (2) WP 7937.2011 Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of Grampanchayat of village Karali. The Members of the Grampanchayat had moved a proposal for passing the no-confidence motion against the petitioners on 05.04.2011. Accordingly, a special meeting was convened on 11.04.2011. The motion was passed by a requisite majority of 2/3rd of the total number of Members. A dispute challenging the same and further appeal has been dismissed. Hence, the present Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to address in the special meeting and as such the resolution passed is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Perusal of the concurrent orders would reveal that the Sarpanch as well as the Upa-Sarpanch, against whom the no-confidence motion was passed, were personally present in the meeting. From the perusal of the no-confidence motion, it does not appear that the present petitioners have made any request for an opportunity to speak in the said meeting. (3) WP 7937.2011 6. In that view of the matter, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners, to now say that they were not given an opportunity of hearing in the said meeting. In any case, in a democracy, will of the majority has to prevail, since the no-confidence motion was passed by the requisite number of majority. We do not find that any error has been committed by the authorities below to warrant interference. Writ Petition rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/