1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5434 OF 2010 Kum.Sumitra Raosaheb Taur ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another. ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr.B.S. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.D.R. Korade, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr.A.B. Kale, advocate for respondent no.2. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 21 st July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order rendered by the learned Additional Collector and by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, confirming the said order. The petitioner was admittedly Sarpanch of village Panchayat Banegaon. No confidence motion was voted against the petitioner. The motion was initiated by five members of the village panchayat vide notice dated 07.01.2010 (Exh.A to the Petition). The Tahsildar summoned the special meeting dated 13th January, 2010 at 2 p.m. for the purpose of preparation and discussion of the subject shown under the notice of motion. Allegedly, the motion was passed by majority since five members 2 voted in favour of no confidence motion and only the petitioner opposed the motion. 2. Heard learned counsel and the learned A.G.P. I have perused the relevant proceedings of the special meeting, which were temporarily made available during the course of hearing. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice was issued by the learned Tahsildar on 29th December, 2009 though the no confidence motion is said to have been moved on 07.01.2010. He would submit that the special meeting ought to have been called for within seven days after the notice which apparently was issued on 29.12.2009, and therefore, the action is illegal. He seeks to rely upon certain observations in "Ganesh Raghunath Samel V/s State of Maharashtra & ors" {2002(4) Bom.C.R. 425}. In the given case, it was admitted fact that no confidence motion was discussed in the meeting dated 29th December, 2001 whereas, the notice was sent on 20th September, 2001. So, admitted fact situation was that the special meeting summoned after seven days period from the date of notice of no confidence motion. In the present case, though the notice issued by the Tahsildar shows date as 29.12.2009 yet office copy thereof purports to show the issuance date as 07.01.2010. It 3 appears that the Tahsildar committed certain error while mentioning the date on the top of the notice. Whether, the notice of no confidence motion was given prior to 29.12.2009 is disputed question of fact and moreover, the petitioner did not specifically alleged that such notice of motion was given on particular date. Infact, the original notice seems to have been issued on 07.01.2010 and on the same day, the Tahsildar has passed the order on that notice to the effect that the special meeting may be summoned on 13th January, 2010. It is further important to notice that minutes of the proceeding of the special meeting would show that all the seven members, including the petitioners were present in the special meeting which was presided over by the Tahsildar. The minutes of the meeting further shows that the petitioner did not raise any objection, particularly, on the ground that the special meeting was called beyond period of 7 days after the alleged notice of no confidence motion. There is no denial of the fact that she was duly served with the notice of no confidence motion and she attended the meeting. Out of seven members, five members of the village panchayat gave their votes in favour of no confidence motion. It is important to further notice that the petitioner did not cast her vote during the proceedings, though she signed the minutes. Under these circumstances, the subsequent avernment of the petitioner about the date of notice and lack of compliance of 4 Section 35(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act is clearly after thought objection. Hence, the Petition is destitute of substance and stands dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp5434.10