1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3657 OF 2008 Vilas Sampat Khomane .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Ms.Manjiri Parasnis for the petitioner. Mr.S.D. Rayarikar, AGP for the respondents. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 12th June, 2008 DATED : 12th June, 2008 DATED : 12th June, 2008 P.C. : 1. This petition is filed to challenge the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune on 16-5-2008 dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of Collector, Pune. The Collector, Pune by his order dated 15-1-2007 upheld the no confidence resolution passed against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was duly elected as Sarpanch of Grampanchayat at Jogwadi, Taluka Baramati, District Pune. On receiving the no-confidence notice, the Respondent No.2 issued a notice on 2 4/10/2006 convening a Special Meeting on 11-10-2006. According to the petitioner on 11-10-2006, some goondas prevented him from participating in the meeting. On 12-10-2006, the petitioner complained to the Sub-Divisional Officer in writing to the effect that he was not allowed to participate in the meeting on 11/10/2006. By an order dated 15-1-2007, the Collector, Pune dismissed the dispute filed by the petitioner. On appeal filed by the petitioner, the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 15-11-2007 dismissed the appeal. On a writ petition filed by the petitioner, this Court by an order dated 4-3-2008 set aside the order on 15-11-2007 and remanded the matter back for denovo consideration. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 16-5-2008, the Deputy Commissioner has upheld the order passed by the Collector dated 15-11-2007. Challenging the aforesaid order, present petition is filed. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that on 11-10-2006 the petitioner was prevented by some goondas with the active connivance of the police from attending no-confidence motion. Therefore, on 12-10-2007, a complaint was filed before the S.D.O. narrating the incident that took place on 11-10-2006. It is contended that as per 3 Section 35-B of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, it was obligatory on the part of the Commissioner to enquire into the matter, especially when the petitioner had given numbers of the vehicles in which the goondas were travelling. As the Commissioner has failed to investigate the matter properly, the said order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ashok K. Mehta V.s. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in AIR 2001 Bombay 55, it is contended that when a person is excluded from participating in no-confidence motion, resolution of no-confidence passed thereunder is liable to be declared as invalid. It is further contended contended that the notice requisitioning no confidence motion being undated, it could not be stated that the requisition meeting was called within the period prescribed under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. 4. In my view, there is no merit in these contentions because admittedly the petitioner had not filed police complaint on 11/10/2006. Although it is contended that the petitioner was prevented from attending the meeting, it is not the case of the petitioner that he was prevented from lodging a police complaint. Assuming that the police on 4 bandobust duty did not stop the goondas from stopping the petitioner to attend the meeting, nothing prevented the petitioner from lodging the police complaint. The petitioner who was a Sarpanch has not given the names of the police officers who allegedly aided and abetted in restraining the petitioner from attending the meeting. In the circumstances, the finding recorded in the impugned order cannot be faulted. 5. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of reported in A.I.R. 2001 Bombay 55 (supra). That decision has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case, a member who was present in the meeting was restrained from participating in the debate. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish that he was prevented from participating in the debate of no-confidence motion. Therefore, the aforesaid decision has no relevance in the present case. 6. It was contended that the notice of no confidence given by the members being undated, the proceedings are ab initio void. There is no merit in this contention, because, unless a specific case is made out by pointing out that the notice calling a meeting to discuss the no confidence notice was 5 issued beyond the period prescribed under the Act, it will not be open to the petitioner to contend that the entire proceedings are ab initio void merely because, the original notice moved by the members was undated. 7. In this view of the matter, I see no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.