1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 331/2011 (Lilabai Anandrao Bele VERSUS The Additional Collector & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S. Borkar, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the R-1 & 2. Shri V.D. Raut, counsel for the R-4 to 14. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 16 , 2011 . Heard. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been removed from the Office of the Sarpanch when the motion of No Confidence was not proposed and seconded, as required by the provisions of Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959 and, hence, a notice was issued to the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 14 has brought to the notice of this Court that the provisions of Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959 are not applicable as the meeting for considering the motion of No Confidence against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch is governed by the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence) Rules, 1975. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 14 relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1998(3) M.L.J. 622 (Hindurao Dnyanu Shirtode & another Versus State of Maharashtra & others). 2 On a perusal of the judgment, it appears that the ground raised by the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been removed from the Office of the Sarpanch when the motion was not proposed or seconded as required by the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959 is liable to be rejected. So also, it cannot be said that the No Confidence motion was liable to be set aside as the allegations levelled against the petitioner for holding a No Confidence motion meeting against the petitioner did not pertain to the duties of the Sarpanch. The allegations levelled against the petitioner not only pertained to the duties of the Sarpanch but, also state that the Sarpanch took the initiative for laying water pipelines in Ward No.4 deliberately and intentionally leaving the other wards and thereby disobeying the majority decision of the house of laying water pipeline in Ward Nos.2 and 5. Both the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner have no force. Since the petition is devoid of merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE