wp1519.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1519/2011 Dinkar Kishor Bhaware -vs- Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri A. B. Nakshane, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Adgokar, learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1to3. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 27/06/2011. The above writ petition takes exception to the order dated 14/03/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, by which order the appeal filed by the petitioner against the motion of no confidence passed against him in the meeting dated 24/11/2010 and thereby confirming the order dated 05/01/2011 passed by the Additional Collector- respondent No.2. The petitioner was at the relevant time Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nakapardi. Requisition came to be moved by some members of the Gram Panchayat Nakapardi for holding a meeting, for considering passing a no confidence motion against the petitioner. The said requisition was moved inter alia on four grounds against the petitioner. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was present in the said meeting in which the motion of no confidence came to be passed by majority against the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that the meeting was not held in terms of the law as propounded by the wp1519.11.odt 2/2 Full Bench of this Court in Viswas Pandurang Mokal -vs- Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu and others reported in 2011 (3) Mh. L.J., 500. It has been held by the Full Bench that a Motion of No Confidence is to be moved in a special meeting of the Panchayat and that the Provisions of the Meeting Rules generally and provisions of Rule 17 in particular apply in such meeting convened under Section 35 of the said Act. It has further been held that the said Section 35 does not postulate as to how the meeting is to be conducted, save and except to provide that the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch concerned shall have a right to attend and participate in that meeting. As indicated herein above, the petitioner had attended the said meeting. But it is the case of the petitioner that he was not allowed to speak. Both the authorities below on the basis of the record, have come to the conclusion that the meeting was held in terms of the procedure prescribed and that the motion was passed by a majority against the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been ousted as a Sarpanch by majority, the democratic mandate would have to be respected. No case for interference is therefore made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE KHUNTE