1 wp 8130.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8130 OF 2011 Chatur Dayaram Patil, Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Anjanvihire, Tq. Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 2. The Additional Collector, Dhule. 3. Returning Officer/Tahsildar, Sindkheda, Tq. Sindakheda, Dist. Dhule. 4. Grampanchayat Anjanvihire, Tq. Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule, Through its Gramsevak. 5. Ratilal Babulal Patil, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Agril., 6. Vishwanath Amrut Patil (Masal), Age : 30 Years, Occu. : Agril., 2 wp 8130.11 7. Smt. Keval Soma Bhil, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : HOusehold, 8. Sakharam Supadu Patil, Age : 70 Years, Occu. : Agril., 9. Prabhakar Raghunath Patil, Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Agril., 10. Bhaskar Chindu Patil, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Agril., 11. Smt. Vandana Nana Nagmal, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Household, 12. Smt. Pramila Naval Patil, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Household, R. No. 5 to 12 R/o Anjanvihire, Tq. Sindakheda, Dist. Dhule. .. Respondents Shri R. N. Dhorde, Advocate h/f Shri P. S. Dighe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri Tiwari, Advocate h/f Shri N. L. Choudhari, Advocate for the Respondent No. 8. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 07TH DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of 3 wp 8130.11 parties taken up for final hearing. 2. No confidence motion was moved against the present petitioner. The same was passed by 6 members to 3. The petitioner preferred a dispute before the Additional Collector. The same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The said appeal is also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 3. Shri Dhorde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of these six members who have voted against the petitioner, two were disqualified on the ground that they do not possess the caste validity certificate. If the said two members who have voted in favour of motion are discarded, then the motion is passed only by four members and same does not constitute 2/3 majority. According to the learned counsel in view of that it could not be said that the provisions of Sec. 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act are satisfied. 4. Shri Tiwari, the learned counsel for respondent No. 8 supports the order and submits that one of the member who is disqualified has subsequently filed writ petition and same is subjudice before this Court. According to the learned counsel all the ingredients of Sec. 35 are satisfied and the petitioner has lost 4 wp 8130.11 the majority of the house. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the order. The Gram Panchayat consists of total nine members. Initially when the motion was passed by six members to three, necessary 2/3 majority was constituted. But it is found that two members are disqualified. The said fact is not disputed. Even if it is assumed that disqualification of one of the member is subjudice, still even if one member is disqualified, the said no confidence motion would be passed only by five members that would not constitute 2/3 majority which is mandatory to uphold the no confidence motion. 6. In view of above the petition succeeds. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. It is held that in view of disqualification of the two members, the necessary 2/3 majority is not constituted and said no confidence motion passed against the petitioner fails. Rule is made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11