1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITOIN NO. 434/2011 Sau. Vimal G. Malokar. VERSUS Additional Commissioner and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 20 , 2011 . Heard Shri Charde, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Thakre, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent no. 1 to 3 and Shri Palshikar, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 9 It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner went at the venue of the meeting at 2 p.m. on 16/8/2010, the record and proceeding maintained by the Tahsildar showed that the petitioner was not present before the ‘No Confidence Motion’ was passed against the petitioner and that the petitioner appeared on the spot at only 2.35 p.m. According to the petitioner, the statement recorded in the record and proceeding is incorrect and the petitioner was present in the meeting at 2.p.m. Though this court prima facie found that the petitioner had not produced any evidence on record before the Collector to show that she was actually present in the 2 meeting held at 2.00 p.m. but was shown to be absent, this court issued notice to the respondents for considering the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent nos. 1 & 2, as also the respondent nos. 4 to 9 have filed their reply. It is categorically stated in the reply that the petitioner was not present in the meeting held at 2.00 p.m. and arrived at the spot at 2.35 p.m. and submitted the first application to the Presiding Officer and Tahsildar at 2.35 p.m., seeking voting by secret ballot. The Tahsildar, however, rejected the application filed by the petitioner as the voting procedure had already been completed and the petitioner had arrived at the spot and had filed the application after the ‘No Confidence Motion’ was passed against the petitioner by a majority of 6 to Nil votes. The record shows that all the members present in the meeting had voted against the petitioner and in favour of the ‘No Confidence Motion’. It is also clear from the record and proceedings maintained by the Tahsildar that the petitioner was not present at 2 p.m. when the meeting was conducted. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 are just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan