(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10460 OF 2010 Balaji s/o. Nilu Chavan, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Limboti, Taluka : Loha, Dist. Nanded, and 2 others. .. Petitioners. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, and 8 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. P.M. Gaikwad, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 9. Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate, for respondent nos.5 to 8. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. The petitioners are elected members who claim that in the meeting of "no confidence" conducted by respondent no.9 / Tahsildar, respondent no.4 / Sarpanch was removed but then, the meeting was not conducted in accordance with law. There was no discussion and only their signatures were obtained by misrepresentation. They had filed their affidavits for the first time in appeal under Section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (For short, "1958 Act") preferred by respondent no.4 before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner found the affidavits incorrect or false and, therefore, has found them liable to be removed under Section 39(1) of the 1958 Act. 2. Adv. Mr. Gaikwad, for the petitioners, contends that it was mandatory to follow procedure as prescribed under Section 39(1) of 1958 Act before ordering their removal. As such, procedure has not been followed and, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside. (3) 3. Adv. Mr. Patil, for respondent nos.5 to 8, contends that the Divisional Commissioner has rightly removed them and the order does not call for any interference. 4. Learned AGP Mr. Korde, for respondent nos.1 to 3, also supports the impugned order. 5. Perusal of operative part of the order does not show any order of removal against the petitioners. The observations are only while giving reasons and those reasons are given for rejecting the appeal preferred by the respondent no.4. It is, therefore, apparent that the impugned order itself does not have the effect of removing the petitioners from their respective offices. I, therefore, do not find any cause of action in favour of the present petitioners. 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10460