(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7330 OF 2009 Kishor s/o. Bhaskar Patil, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kapadne, Taluka and District : Dhule. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 2. The Collector, Dhule, 3. The Tahsildar, Dhule. 4. Vilas s/o. Himmat Patil, 5. Laxmibai Shaligram Mali, 6. Zopa s/o. Khandu Patil, 7. Arunabai Murlidhar Patil, 8. Adhikar s/o. Mahadu Bhil, 9. Santosh s/o. Madku Mali, 10. Sharad s/o. Nawal Mali, 11. Chandrakalabai Ishwar Mali, 12. Vijay s/o. Ramdas Patil, 13. Sonabai Rajdhar Mali, 14. Bhagwan s/o. Digambar Mali, 15. Vijay s/o. Sambhaji Patil, 16. Chhayabai Chandrakant Patil, 17. Anil s/o. Natthu Mali, 18. Motiram s/o. Vitthal Bhamre, (2) 19. Surekhabai Narendra Patil. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. Amol Sawant, Advocate, for respondent nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 11TH NOVEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges concurrent findings of fact arrived at, by the learned Additional Collector, Dhule, vide order dated 31st July 2009, thereby rejecting the dispute filed by the present petitioner, chllenging the "no confidence motion" passed on 25th June 2009, and the order passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, dated 13th October 2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. (3) 2. Mr. V.D. Hon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned suffers from the following vices : Firstly, that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of putting forward his case in the meeting in which the "no confidence motion" was considered. Secondly, when the matter was heard before the Additional Collector, though an adjournment was sought on the ground that the lawyer for the petitioner was required to go to hospital for treatment of his daughter, the adjournment was refused, which resulted in non- granting of proper opportunity of hearing. 3. Mr. P.P. More, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Mr. Amol Sawant, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents caveators, have supported the impugned orders. 4. In so far as the first ground is concerned, it can be seen from the concurrent findings, that the notice of the meeting for considering "no confidence motion" was duly served on all 17 members, including the petitioner. The authorities below have found from the perusal of the record, that the notice of the meeting of "no confidence motion" was duly served upon the petitioner. An acknowledgment to that effect was also on record. Inspite of due notice, the petitioner has chosen not to remain present for the meeting. The meeting of "no confidence motion" (4) of the Grampanchayat consisting of 17 members has been carried out by 12 members. 5. If the petitioner has chosen not to remain present in the meeting inspite of due service of notice, he cannot be allowed to say that he was not given proper opportunity to defend his case in the meeting. It is unable to understand how a person served with due notice, who choses not to remain present in the meeting, can be said to have denied opportunity of hearing. 6. In so far as second ground is concerned, it can be seen that in the proceedings before the Additional Collector, one Advocate, Mr. Vaibhav Purohit, was very much present. However, he sought an adjournment on the ground that the Advocate, Mr. Samir Pandit could not remain present. The adjournment was refused. However, time was given to Advocate, Mr. Purohit, so as to prepare the case and offer oral arguments. In this background, the learned Additional Collector has considered the case on the basis of the pleadings made by the party and the record produced before him. It cannot, therefore, be said that any serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by non-grant of adjournment. It is also noticed that in proceedings under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, merely because the proceedings are filed, the effect of the "no confidence motion" stands automatically stayed. In view of this, there is tendency on the part of the litigants, against whom "no confidence motion" is passed, to seek adjournment and continue in the office even after they have lost the majority. (5) 7. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference, in the concurrent findings of fact, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7330