1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9772 OF 2010 Prabhakar Natha Ghate ...Petitioner Versus The Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division Nashik and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.K. Shinde, advocate for the petitioner Mr. D.R. Korde, learned A.G.P. for the respondents 1 to 3. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 15TH NOVEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent authorities have not followed the procedure for no confidence motion moved against the petitioner. So also the votes of two members, who have put thumb impression, the said thumb impressions were not attested. Therefore, learned counsel would urge that this petition requires consideration. 3 Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned 2 A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, I find that out of 11 members, 10 members have voted against the petitioner. Though the votes of two members, who have put thumb impression, are not counted, even then it reveals that out of 11 members, 8 members have voted against the petitioner. In my view, the hyper technical argument on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced, as in our democratic set up, when out of 11 members, 8 members have voted against the petitioner, the petitioner absolutely has no right to hold the post. 4 In the result, writ petition stands dismissed summarily. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/