1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2913 OF 2010 Bhagwan s/o Dayaram Patil .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 4. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 1st APRIL, 2010. PER COURT : 1 A motion of 'no confidence' came to be passed against the petitioner who was holding the elected office of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Junone, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. The motion of 'no confidence' was passed by majority, five members out of seven voted in favour of the motion. The petitioner raised objection to the proceedings by presenting appeal to the Collector, Jalgaon and the same was heard and disposed of by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon who after hearing the concerned parties was pleased to dismiss the same by order dt. 30-9-2009. 2 Petitioner raised challenge to the order passed by the Additional Collector by presenting appeal to the Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. The appeal also came to be turned down by the appellate authority by order dt. 25-2-2010. 2 The contention of the petitioner is that his counsel appearing before the appellate forum had withdrawn his appearance and, as such, the petitioner was not extended an opportunity to put forth his contentions on 16-1-2010. It appears, the petitioner did not remain present on the given date and, as such, next date i.e. 31st January, 2010 was communicated to him. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 31st January, 2010, he had been to the office of the Additional Collector, however, the office was closed, as the date given being a Sunday. It is his contention that no further communication was made informing the date prescribed in the matter. It is the contention of the petitioner that he made enquiry with the office of the Additional Collector but he was not informed the date. It is thus contended that the judgment rendered by the appellate forum is without observing the principles of natural justice. 3 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the authorities. It is 3 not disputed that on withdrawal of appearance by one counsel, the petitioner had engaged another counsel. It was the responsibility of the counsel appearing for the petitioner to enquire about the date prescribed in the matter and appear on the given date. It appears that the petitioner has not prosecuted the appeal diligently before the appellate forum. He was absent on number of consecutive dates before the appellate forum. Apart from this aspect, considering the merits of the controversy, I do not find that there exists any ground for causing interference in the impugned order. The motion of 'no confidence' is passed against the petitioner by majority. There does not appear to be any procedural lacuna in conducting the meeting. There is little scope for agitating the grievance in respect of passing the 'no confidence' motion against the petitioner. This is not a fit case for causing any interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition therefore stands rejected. 4 In view of dismissal of petition, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp2913.10.odt