WP 6402/10 1 SSK/22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6402 OF 2010 Sou. Sunanda Pandurang Pankar ....Petitioner Versus Tahsildar, Shahuwadi, Officer of In-Charge, Tal-Shahuwadi, Dist-Kolhapur & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Milind Parab i/b. M/s. Milind Parab & Associates, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for Respondent for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 10. Mr. Manoj Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 & 9. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 12th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petition pertains to the proceedings of No Confidence Motion. The Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat – Shahuwadi. The Gram Panchayat of Shahuwadi consists of 7 members viz. Petitioner and Respondent Nos.4 to 9. The requisition was moved by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 calling upon the Tahsildar to convey Special Meeting to discuss the No Confidence Motion against the Petitioner- Sarpanch. The No Confidence Motion was passed by 2/3 majority. The WP 6402/10 2 SSK/22 Petitioner disputed the validity of the Special Meeting and the Resolution passed therein and therefore, preferred a dispute application before the Additional Collector, Kolhapur. The same was dismissed on 6th May, 2010. The Petitioner obtained certified copy of the order on 10th May, 2010. The Petitioner further filed an appeal under section 35(3)(c) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 on 16th June, 2010 i.e. beyond the period of seven days’ limitation. The Divisional Commissioner by the impugned order rejected the Petitioner’s appeal on the ground that same is not filed within limitation. This Court in the case of Prabhakar Versus Tahsildar, Sangamner & Ors. reported in 2002(1) Mh.LJ 881 has held that the Collector while deciding a dispute under section 35(3B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act is not a Court and therefore, section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application. In view of the ratio of the said decision, the delay cannot be condoned. The Petitioner’s appeal is rightly dismissed. I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)