1 WP 8946.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8946 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders .......................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23/11/2011. Mr. A.S.Shivpuje, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. N.B.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. V.H.Maney, Advocate for Resp. No. 2. ......................... PER COURT : 1. Motion of no confidence was moved against the present petitioner. The same was passed by more than 2/3rd majority. The petitioner filed Dispute with the Collector. The Collector dismissed the said Dispute. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner also dismissed the said Appeal. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. Shivpuje, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not issued any notice of no confidence motion. As such, the petitioner could not attend the 2 WP 8946.2011 meeting. Mover over, the proceedings do not show that any debate had taken place on the said motion nor the motion was proposed or seconded by any one. The provisions of the meetings rules were not followed. There is nothing on record to show that the notice of said motion was at any time served upon the petitioner. The learned counsel contends that in view of the aforesaid illegalities, the meeting vitiates. The authorities have not taken into consideration these aspects. 3. Mr. Maney, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 supports the order and submits that the notice was served upon the petitioner. Both the authorities in their Judgment have observed this fact. There is nothing on record to show that the said observations are perverse. The Gram Panchayat consists of 11 members, out of it 8 have voted in favour of the motion. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 5. From the perusal of both the Judgments, it is manifest that the authorities have come to the specific conclusion that the notice of motion of no confidence is served upon the petitioner and the petitioner did not remain present in the meeting. The debate has also taken place on the said motion. 3 WP 8946.2011 In view of that sufficient compliance was made of the meetings rules. Even otherwise, the petitioner has lost the confidence of the majority of the house. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader that even the elections of the Sarpanch and the Up-Sarpanch have been held on 22/11/2011. 6. In light of the above, no case for interference is made out. 7. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 8946.2011