1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2308 OF 2011 (Tukaram K. Jadhav vs. Addl. 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 S.D. Chopde, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.V. Bhoyar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri K.S. Malokar, Advocate for the respondent no.4. --------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 20, 2011 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 25/4/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati by which the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25/2/2011 passed by the Additional Collector came to be rejected. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of village Kherda Khurd. A notice for requisitioning a meeting was served on the Tahsildar by the respondent nos. 4 2 to 8 herein. The said requisition was rejected by the Tahsildar against which the respondent no.4 filed a representation before the Collector, Akola. The Collector, Akola by his order dated 20/12/2010 held that considering the provisions of Section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, the Tahsildar had no discretion in the matter of holding the requisitioned meeting and rejection of the requisition by the Tahsildar was illegal and, therefore, directed holding of the requisitioned meeting. A fresh requisition was accordingly given by the respondent no.4 on 24/12/2010 in respect of which requisition, meeting was held on 30/12/2010 in which meeting the motion of no confidence came to be passed by the petitioner by majority 5:2. The petitioner aggrieved by the said no confidence motion passed against him filed an Appeal before the Additional Collector, which Appeal came to be rejected by the order dated 25/2/2011. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a further Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which also came to be rejected by order dated 25/4/2011. 3 It is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Collector could not have exercised jurisdiction against the refusal of the Tahsildar to hold a meeting as no jurisdiction is conferred on him. It is further sought to be contended that in view of the fact that second requisition has been entertained, the meeting held pursuant thereto is vitiated. In my view, both the above contentions cannot be countenanced in the discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court firstly because the concerned Tahsildar had no option, but to hold the meeting and, therefore, in refusing to hold the meeting had acted against the mandate of Section 35(3) of the said Act. Secondly, the no confidence motion having been passed by majority of 5:2, the democratic mandate would have to be respected and followed. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj 4