1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.118 of 2007 In Writ Petition No.1551 of 2007 (Decided) (Ashok s/o Trambakrao Kale v. State of Maharashtra, through Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, and others) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri O.Y. Kashid, Advocate for Appellant. Shri T.R. Kankale, AGP for R- 1 to 3. CORAM : A.P. Deshpande & R.C. Chavan, JJ. DATE : 10th January, 2008 It is a case of the appellant that he is an elected Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat against whom within preceding period of six months a motion of no confidence was moved as an Incharge Sarpanch and the said motion was not carried out on account of failure to hold the meeting. Hence, the second resolution could not have been brought within a period of six months having regard to the provisions of Section 35(3A) of The Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. On the own showing of the appellant, the earlier resolution was brought against him as an Incharge Sarpanch. On perusal of Section 35 of the Act, prima facie, it appears that no such no confidence motion could have been brought against the appellant as an Incharge Sarpanch, as it is not an office to which the appellant has been elected. It is for the first time that the motion of no confidence in question had been moved against the appellant as a Up- 2 Sarpanch and has been passed by the requisite majority satisfying the conditions laid down in Section 35 of the Act. Hence, the contention that the impugned no confidence motion is in breach of sub-section (3A) of Section 35 of the Act is unsustainable. It is also relevant to note that the earlier no confidence motion was moved against the present appellant as an Incharge Sarpanch and the said motion was not considered as the meeting was cancelled. Perused the order impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal. It does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed summarily. JUDGE JUDGE pdl