:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2008 Shri Vijay Rajaram Shelar ...Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Dhamal, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.S.A.Sawant Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 23rd January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This Writ Petition is directed against an order of the Commissioner dated 31.12.2007 dismissing an Appeal under Section 35(3) of the Village Panchayat Act, 1958 filed by the present petitioner to challenge :2: :2: :2: the order of the Additional Collector, Satara dated 31.12.2007. 2. The petitioner had approached the Collector with an application that the ‘No confidence’ Resolution passed against him by the members of the Gram Panchayat Ambeghar Turf Medha, Tal.Jaoli, Dist-Satara should be set aside. 3. It is not in dispute that a notice was issued by six members of the said Gram Panchayat envincing their intent to move a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner-Sarpanch. Pursuant to the receipt of that notice, the Tahsildar complied with the Rules in that behalf and convened a meeting for discussing the said motion. At the special meeting held for that purpose admittedly no other business came to be transacted. The Panchayat consists of seven members. Even the Upasarpanch and five others voted in favour of the Resolution and the petitioner was the lone member opposing it. The requisite number thus carried the Resolution after it was put to vote. :3: :3: :3: 4. The grievance of the petitioner before the authorities was that there is no compliance with the Rules, inasmuch as, copies of the Notice and Motion were not forwarded to the authorities and the parties contemplated by the Rules. Therefore, when the petitioner received the notice, but, did not receive a copy of the Motion, than, he was not in position to reply to the charges against him. That opportunity is required to be granted in the democratic set up. That being not granted, the Resolution passed cannot be given any effect. 5. Mr.Dhamal appearing for the petitioner reiterated this grievance before me and invited my attention to the Rules which requires copies to be forwarded to the Authorities specified therein. He submits that the Rules are mandatory. 6. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have perused the petition and the impugned orders, so also, the proceedings of the said meeting. At the meeting, the petitioner was given full opportunity to meet the charges or allegations which were made against him by :4: :4: :4: the persons who moved the Resolution. The petitioner replied to the same. Thereafter, the Resolution was put to vote and was carried. It is not the grievance of the petitioner that the meeting was convened not by the Authority designated to convene it but by somebody else. It is not his grievance that the during the course of the meeting, he had pointed out that he had not received a copy of the Motion. The meeting proceeded, Resolution was moved and the petitioner replied to the charges. When such an opportunity was admittedly granted to him and the majority does not have confidence and trust in him, then, it was expected of him that in the democratic set up, he would accept the decision of the majority. 9. That apart, both the Additional Collector, Satara and the Commissioner have considered the petitoner’s grievance and have perused the record produced before them. They have adverted to the fact that compliance was made with the statute and the rules. It is nobody’s case that the record does not indicate that copies of the notice were not forwarded to the :5: :5: :5: authorities specified therein. That is evident even from a copy of the notice appended to the petition. The petitioner was given full opportunity and he was not prejudiced in any manner. The requisite majority has supported the Resolution and the petitioner alone voted against it. In such circumstances, both authorities were right in refusing to interfere and setting aside the Resolution. 10. I see no reason to take a different view as the Collector and Commissioner have based their findings and conclusions on the basis of the materials produced before them. Once the petitioner has lost confidence of six out of the total seven members, then, he was expected to honour their wishes. In such circumstances, no case is made out for interference. Petition is dismissed. sd/- ********