1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION WRIT PETITION NO. 7133 OF 2009 Ravindra s/o. Prabhakar Reddy (Chintanpalli) .. petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Divisional Commissioner at Aurangabad. .. Respondent. --- Mr. G.N. Chincholikar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and 9 to 12, caveators. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 4th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent finding arrived at by the Additional Collector, Nanded thereby rejecting the dispute filed by the petitioner challenging the `No Confidence Motion' passed against him on 24th February, 2009 and the order passed by 2 the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 14th September, 2009, thereby dismissing the appeal. 2] Shri Chincholkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers on two grounds. Firstly, the Divisional Commissioner has not given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner. Secondly, the allegations against the petitioner were totally without substance and as such, the authorities ought to have held that the No Confidence Motion was not properly passed. 3] Shri Jadhav, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and 9 to 12 submits that the No confidence motion has been passed against the petitioner by requisite majority and both the authorities have concurrently rejected the contention of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4] The No confidence Motion has been passed against the petitioner with the support of majority of 8 members in a Gram Panchayat consisting of 11 members. In so far as the first ground is concerned, it can be seen that the lawyers for the respondents were very well present before the Divisional Commissioner when hearing was held on 31st August, 2009. Nothing precluded the petitioner from attending the proceedings. In any case, when the lawyer was engaged by the petitioner, atleast the lawyer should have remained present when the matter was heard. Perusal of the 3 order impugned would reveal that the learned Divisional Commissioner has considered the entire record and after considering the entire record and submissions, has passed the impugned order. In so far as the second ground is concerned, it can be seen that the motion of No confidence was validly passed by a requisite 2/3rd majority. The petitioner has lost the confidence of majority of the members. It can clearly be seen that the authorities have considered the matter from the correct perspective and as such, no interference is warranted. Hence, the writ petition is summarily rejected. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-