skt/- 1 32 wp.3260.10 & 33.wp.3263.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3260 OF 2010 Irappa Shankar Hasuri ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3263 OF 2010 Shankar Nilkanth Yrakdavar ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents ...... Mr.Vijay S. Kokitkar for the petitioner. Mrs. M.S.Bane, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 4. ...... CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 27th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. These petitions filed by the Sarpanch and Upsarpanch of the Village Khandal, Taluka : Gadhinglaj, District : Kolhapur, who have been unseated by no confidence motion passed against them in the meeting dated 16th November 2009, question the appellate judgment of the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, who dismissed the petitioner’s appeals. skt/- 2 32 wp.3260.10 & 33.wp.3263.10.sxw 2. According to the petitioners, at the meeting when no confidence motion against them were considered, all the 10 members of the Grampanchayat were present. 8 members voted against them and it seems only two petitioners voted in favour of themselves. Thus, virtually the entire Grampanchayat was against the petitioners. According to the learned counsel of the petitioners, one of the member Sou. Kalavva Kepana Lkyanavar was wrongly allowed by the Tahasildar, who presided over the meeting, to vote with the help of an assistant. He rightly submitted that an assistant could have been provided to said Grampanchayat member only if she was blind or had any other physical infirmity. The Tahasildar could not have permitted Sou.Kalavva Kepana Lkyanavar to take help of an assistant merely because she was less educated. However, even if, her vote is excluded, there were 7 votes against the petitioners out of 10 members of the Grampanchayat. Thus, more than 2/3rd of the majority of the Grampanchayat was against the petitioners and the resolutions were therefore rightly carried. skt/- 3 32 wp.3260.10 & 33.wp.3263.10.sxw 3. In view of this, though for different reasons, the orders passed by the Additional Collector as well as the Commissioner do not call for any interference. 4. Both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. [ R.C.CHAVAN, J. ]