1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2982 of 2011 Suresh B. Borkar and another. Vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. Kirti Satpute, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.S.M. Bhagde, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 & 9. Mr.A.K. Bhangadkar, Adv. for respondent nos. 4 to 8. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 23 rd September, 2011. The petitioners-Sarpanch and Upsarpanch challenge the No Confidence Motion passed against them on three grounds. It is the case of the petitioners that none of the members present in the special meeting discussed the charges levelled against the petitioners and in the absence of any discussion, the motion could not have been put to vote. It is also the case of the petitioners that though the petitioners had asked for voting by secret ballot, the voting was conducted by show of hands. Thirdly, according to the petitioners, the signatures of all the members voting in favour of the motion were not obtained at the end of the meeting. All the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners for challenging the No Confidence Motion are liable to be rejected. The first submission made on behalf of th petitioners that there was no discussion in the special meeting and therefore the resolution of No Confidence Motion is liable to be set aside is liable to be rejected as 2 it is clearly observed in the minutes that though opportunity was granted to all the members to speak in the special meeting, none of them was willing to speak and therefore the meeting proceeded further. In case opportunity is granted to the members to speak and if they decline to speak, the No Confidence Motion cannot be set aside as nobody can be forced or compelled to speak at the special meeting. The second submission made on behalf of the petitioners in regard to the rejection of the request of the petitioners for conducting the voting by secret ballot is also liable to be rejected as the provisions of Rule 28 of the Meeting Rules prescribe that the voting should ordinarily be taken by word of mouth or by show of hand and only in case the majority of members present, so decide, the same may be taken by secret ballot. Moreover, the authorities have rightly held that there is nothing in the minutes to show that the petitioners had indeed asked that the voting be effected by secret ballot. In any case, the petitioners have not shown the prejudice caused to the petitioners in view of the voting by show of hands. The last submission made on behalf of the petitioners about the absence of signatures of the members voting in favour of the resolution at the end of the proceedings and the effect thereof on the No Confidence Motion passed against the petitioners need not be considered as this ground is not specifically raised by the petitioners before the Additional Collector and the same is an afterthought. The minutes clearly show that five members had voted in favour of the motion and two were against it. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the five members had not voted in favour of the motion and against the petitioners. 3 For the reasons aforesaid,the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan