1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1739 OF 2009 Rameshwar s/o Tulshiram Chandekar Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and two others Respondents Mr.P.B.Rakhunde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.B.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 06th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1 The action of removal of petitioner, who was holding the post of Sarpanch of village Panchayat Maregoan, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded, under Section 36 of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 It is alleged that the Sarpanch has not conducted mandatory Gram Sabhas as contemplated by Sections 7 and 36 of the Act. It transpires from record that petitioner has failed to conduct one mandatory meeting and has conducted only five meetings. However, requirement prescribed under law is in respect of holding six meetings. Petitioner has also not given any explanation or put forth a circumstance, which prohibited him from holding mandatory meeting. In the absence of any explanation as regards 2 failure to hold mandatory meeting, the authorities below were justified in holding that there is failure on the part of petitioner to comply with the provisions of the Act in respect of holding of mandatory meetings. In the absence of any explanation for failure on the part of petitioner to hold mandatory meeting as prescribed under law, the decision rendered by Additional Collector needs to be confirmed. It is also to be taken note of that the order in respect of removal has been issued on 18.02.2009 almost more than a year back and said order passed by Additional Collector removing the petitioner has not been stayed till this date. No interference is required to be caused at this stage. Petition is devoid of substance. 3 Writ Petition stands dismissed. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE adb/wp173909