( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4717 OF 2010 Ganesh Yadavrao Kadam PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.B. Karande, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for the respondent/State. Mr. V.B. Dhage, advocate for the respondents No. 7 and 8. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 2. A notice of No Confidence Motion was given and a special meeting was called. The motion was passed by majority i.e. four (4) members out of five (5) gave votes in favour of the motion. The Tahsildar presided over the meeting. The petitioner was, therefore, held that he is disqualified to continue as Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat. He preferred appeal before the Collector on the grounds that notice of No Confidence Motion was not served on him, that he was unable to attend the meeting due to serious illness, but adjournment was not granted and that the venue of the meeting was not the ( 2 ) office of the Village Panchayat as shown in the notice but it was shifted to Anganwadi office. 3. The Collector dismissed the appeal. The dismissal order is confirmed by the learned Divisional Commissioner. 4. So far as objection regarding venue of the meeting is concerned, no prejudice is shown by the petitioner due to change of the venue and moreover that the record itself goes to indicate that the Village Panchayat has no separate office as such. Therefore, the meeting could not be held in the office of the Village Panchayat. It is consistently found by both the authorities that notice of the meeting was duly served on the petitioner. This fact finding cannot be disturbed in the exercise of writ jurisdiction as the same is based on relevant material. Thirdly, the causes shown by the petitioner regarding his absence do not impact legality of the special meeting. Considering the concurrent judgements of both the authorities, no interference is called for. The petition is dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp4717-10