1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 203 0F 2010 *** Raju S/o Pandurang Sarode Versus The State of Maharashtra and others *** 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Murkute for the Petitioner. Perused the order. In this writ petition, it is not in dispute that the present petitioner has been removed by passing no trust motion, who was officiating as Sarpanch. Said removal has been challenged by filing Dispute before the District Collector. The District Collector dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner. Said order was challenged by filing Gram Panchayat Appeal No.106 of 2009 before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. Order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik (Exhibit-A, page 15), is on record. Counsel for the Petitioner points out grounds raised before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. Two grounds were raised; the one was that opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the petitioner by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon while deciding Dispute Appeal No.42 of 2009 and decision is ex- parte. Second ground raised, was that, Code 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. of Conduct in view of declaration of elections of Legislative Assembly, in the State of Maharashtra, was made applicable and despite this fact meeting of the Gram Panchayat for passing no trust motion was scheduled and business has been transacted. 2. I have perused the finding of the learned Divisional Commissioner on both these points. So far as opportunity of being heard is concerned, in so many words the authority concerned has observed that the matter was initially listed on 5th October, 2009. On that day the petitioner was absent, however, his Advocate was present. The matter was adjourned to 8th October, 2009. This date was within the knowledge of the Advocate for the Petitioner. On 8th of October, 2009 the petitioner was present before the learned Divisional Commissioner, however, application was filed that his lawyer was not feeling well and time was sought for. This application was rejected by the learned District Collector and the matter was decided by the learned Additional District Collector on 23rd October, 2009. Recording these facts, learned Divisional Commissioner, Nashik rejected the argument of the petitioner that the opportunity was not made available to the 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Petitioner. These details shows that opportunity was made available to the Petitioner. It was for the petitioner to see that counsel would remain present for him and address the Court. I see no perversity in the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner on this ground. The second ground raised is pertaining to the application of the Code of Conduct in view of the elections of Legislative Assembly in the State of Maharashtra. There is no statute prohibiting holding of no trust motion during the course of application of the Code of Conduct. This ground does not hold any water. 3. In my view, order impugned is reasoned and legal. No interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction is necessary. Petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs. [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:12/01/2010. ans/203