1 wp 5696.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5696 OF 2011 Digambar Vithal Sampale .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri R. R. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri R. P. Phatake, A.G.P for the Respondent/State. Shri R. K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jalkot. The respondent Nos. 5 to 17 are members of the Village Panchayat. They submitted a notice of no confidence motion against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto the Tahsildar issued notice in respect of the meeting and Tahsildar called the meeting on 02 nd April, 2011 to discuss and vote on the said motion. The no confidence motion was passed by 13 members out of 17. The petitioner challenged the same before the Additional Collector, 2 wp 5696.11 who dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner who also dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has assailed the said orders before this Court. 2. Shri Suryawanshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice calling for no confidence motion is vague. It does not mention the exact ground. Even in the meeting of no confidence motion the subject was not discussed. One of the members only put the signatures of other members. All these aspects are not considered by the authorities. The learned counsel further contends that two of the members could not submit their caste validity certificate within four months. As such, they automatically stand disqualified and they can not vote in the said meeting. All these aspects have not been considered by the authorities. 3. All the respondents have filed their say before the Additional Collector and have controverted the stand of the petitioner. This Court in its writ jurisdiction would not go on the merits of the grounds on which the motion of no confidence was called, but would consider as to whether proper procedure has been followed or not. It appears that the notice has been given by 3 wp 5696.11 the Tahsildar to all the members and it was served on them. It appears that even discussion had taken place about said charges against the petitioner and thereafter as per demand of the petitioner voting was done by secret ballot. Thirteen members have voted in favour of the motion. There are total 17 members. As such more than 2/3 rd members present and entitled to vote have voted against the petitioner. It is clear that the petitioner has lost the confidence of the majority of the house. 4. The contention that two members are not entitled to vote as they have not submitted their validity certificate within four months is concerned, the same would not be relevant. There cannot be automatic disqualification. Even otherwise, even if those two persons are not considered, then the total number would be 15 and 11 members would have passed the said resolution the same would again be more than 2/3. Both these authorities have considered these aspects. 5. In the light of above no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11