-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6716 OF 2011 Daryappa D. Kshirsagar. ..Petitioner. Versus The Divisional Commissioner Pune Division, Pune & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Machindra Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : August 22, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh and Mr. Patne, learned counsel for the respective parties. The petition arises out of No-Confidence Motion proceeding against the petitioner. The village panchayat Khairav consists of 9 members. In the year 2006, the petitioner was initially elected as member and later on Sarpanch of said village panchayat. On 18/5/2011, 6 members of the village panchayat gave requisition to the Tehsildar requesting him to call for a special meeting to discuss the No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner. Notice of the special meeting alongwith copy of the requisition was served on all the members. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that since he was avoding service of notice. The special meeting was held on 23/5/2011. The said meeting was attended by 7 members. The No-Confidence Motion srp -: 2 :- was passed by 6 : 1 majority. Thus, it was passed by two-third majority. The petitioner challenged the validity of the special meeting and resolution by filing dispute application before the Collector under section 35(3-B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. This application was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Commissioner under section 35(3-C) of the said Act, however, same was also dismissed by the order impugned in this writ petition. 2. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the petitioner was not aware about the No-Confidence Motion as no notice of the special meeting was served on him. I do not find any merit in the argument in view of the finding of facts recorded by both the authorities below that the petitioner was served by affixing notice, however, he did not remain present for the special meeting. The opportunity was afforded to the petitioner however he did not avail the same. The fact remains that the petitioner has lost confidence of 2/3rd majority. In democracy, the majority wish is required to be respected. In these facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition in extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)