1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 521 OF 2010. (Sau. Meenatai Gajanan Gaikwad .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 08, 2010. Heard Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri O.D. Kakde, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri R.S. Charpe, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 to 9. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel states that action in the present matter is not simplicitor under Section 145[1A] of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, and 4 members of the Gram Panchayat have resigned only to see that the petitioner is dislodged from the post of Sarpanch. His contention is, petitioner is elected as Sarpanch on open seat reserved for ladies and no confidence was brought against her by 4 members who earlier wanted her to resign. 2 As that no confidence failed, they tendered resignation. He states that these circumstances and falseness in contention that husband of petitioner was interfering with administration, was placed for consideration before respondent no.2 in response to notice under section 145[1A], but these facts are not gone into. He places reliance upon the judgment reported in 2003 [2] BCR 821 (Kavita Sakharam Chavan and others .vrs. Commissioner, Kokan Division and others) to urge that in similar circumstances, Division Bench of this Court has found recourse to the provisions of Section 145[1A] malafide. He further points out that the remaining tenure of Gram Panchayat is upto 27.08.2010. Shri Charpe, learned counsel on the other hand points out that in facts before the Hon'ble Division Bench there was no opportunity of hearing and hence the Hon'ble Division Bench has interfered in the matter. He states that here there are serious charges against the present petitioner and hence no confidence was sought. According to him, failure of motion of no confidence has nothing to do with the resignation of respondents. He invites attention to the reply filed by those respondents before the Commissioner. Shri Kakde, learned A.G.P. has also supported the order. He stated that as out of total 7 members, 4 have 3 resigned, hence ingredients of Section 145[1A] are satisfied and there are no malafides against respondent no.2. Perusal of facts clearly show that the motion of no confidence failed and immediately thereafter 4 members have resigned. Their reply to Commissioner again shows that there are grievances which earlier were raised by them for moving no confidence. In these circumstances, though the Divisional Commissioner has issued notice and heard the parties, specific contention that only effort was to get rid of petitioner in the matter has not been considered by respondent no.2. In the light of the Division Bench judgment mentioned above, the said consideration and finding thereon was erroneous. In view of this, I am not in a position to accept the order dated 13.01.2010 passed by respondent no.2. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. This Court has already stayed that order on 03.02.2010. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule accordingly, however, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.