KJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4288 OF 2010 Sou.Rupali Pandurang Dhokale ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents ---- Mr.S.S.Salunkhe for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Chandrachud for the respondent no.2. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar AGP for the State. ---- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J DATE : 25/8/2010 P. C.: 1 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Leave to amend for adding a party. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of a village panchayat. No confidence motion was moved against the petitioner. Out of the 7 members of the village panchayat, 6 voted in support of the no confidence motion. The petitioner preferred statutory dispute before the Collector. The same was rejected and the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Pune has been dismissed. These are the two orders impugned in this Writ KJ 2 petition. 2 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that no confidence motion is illegal as the minutes of the meeting do not record that the said motion was moved by a member and was seconded by another member. His 2nd contention is that one of the members has filed an affidavit dated 4.5.2010 stating therein that he was put under pressure and therefore, he was forced to vote in favour of the no confidence motion. 3 Admittedly, the 1st contention raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner was not raised specifically either before the Collector or before the Appellate Authority. No such ground is taken in the application preferred by the petitioner before the Collector. Thus the said factual contention was not raised before both the authorities and therefore, respondents had no opportunity to deal with the said factual contention. Hence, for the first time in writ petition, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the said contention as the same will cause prejudice to the respondents. KJ 3 4 As far as alleged affidavit is concerned, a copy thereof is tendered across the bar. It is not annexed to the petition. The affidavit has been allegedly affirmed on 4.5.2010. The appellate authority decided the appeal on 30.5.2010 and admittedly the said affidavit was not produced before the appellate authority. Hence, the same cannot be taken for consideration. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (JUDGE)