-: 1 :- wp-5547/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5547 OF 2010 Sunita Uday Yadav. ..Petitioner. Versus Rajendra Krishna Katkar & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Kedar Patil for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for respondent nos. 5 to 7. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 21, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Kedar Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The village panchayat of village Sambharwadi consists of 5 members. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch in the year 2007. 4 members of the village panchayat gave requisition to the Tehsildar calling for special meeting to discuss “the no-confidence motion” against the petitioner. In pursuance of the requisition, the Tehsildar conveyed a special meeting, which was attended by all 5 members, including the petitioner. The No-Confidence Motion was carried by 4:1. The petitioner disputed the validity of special meeting as well as the No-Confidence Motion resolution passed therein. The Collector, however, dismissed the petitioner’s dispute application. The petitioner thereafter preferred an srp -: 2 :- wp-5547/10 appeal before the Commissioner, which was also dismissed, and therefore the present writ petition. 3. The only point the petitioner has raised is that out of 5 members of the village panchayat, there were proceedings for disqualification against two members of the village panchayat. The fact remains that as on today these proceedings are pending and those two members are not disqualified. In these circumstances, in my view these two members are entitled to participate in the special meeting which was conveyed to discuss the No-confidence motion. Both the authorities below have approached the matter from correct point of view. The petitioner has lost confidence of 2/3rd majority. In a democracy, Will of the majority has to be honoured. In the light of these facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition in my writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)