Ladda wp-7692-1111 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7692 OF 2011. Chandrakant Bapu Chougule & anr ....Petitioners. Versus Gramsevak Grampanchayat Mhasurli ...Respondents and others. Mr Sangramsingh Yadav for the petitioners. Mr R.M. Patne, A.G.P. for the Respondents. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 20th September, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioners are challenging no-confidence motion, passed by 2/3rd majority, against them. Petitioner No.1 is the Sarpanch and petitioner No.2 is the Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mhasurli. The Grampanchayat Mhasurli consists of eleven members. They got elected in a general election which was held on 21.8.2010. On 20.5.2011 eight members of the village panchayat submitted separate requisition against Ladda wp-7692-1122 2 petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 respectively to the Tahsildar, pointing that the petitioners have lost confidence and requested calling for special meeting to discuss no-confidence motion. On the same day, the Tahsildar convened a special meeting of village panchayat to be held on 26.5.2011. All eleven members of the village panchayat, including the petitioners, attended the said meeting. The Tahsildar put the motion to vote at a time against both the petitioners. The motion of no-confidence was passed by 2/3rd majority i.e.eight members in favour of the resolution and three members opposed the resolution. 3. The validity of the special meeting as well as no confidence motion was challenged by the petitioners by filing dispute before the Collector under the provisions of sections 35 (3) (b) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. That dispute was dismissed. The petitioners' appeal, under Section 35 (3) (c) of the said Act, before the Divisional Commissioner, was also dismissed, which is the impugned order challenged in the present writ petition. 4. The only point, that learned counsel for the petitioners argued, is, that the presiding officer should not have put the motion is of no confidence against both the petitioners at a time to vote. In short, their grievance is that the motions should have been put to vote separately against each of the petitioners. He relied upon a judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of Ashabai Ashok Shinde v. Additional Ladda wp-7692-1133 3 Commissioner, Amravati Division and others 2009 (2) Bom.C.R. 880. The submission is without any merit. There is no provision either under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act or under the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 which prohibit putting motion of no confidence to vote against Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch at one time. The facts before the learned Single Judge in the matter of Ashabai Shinde (cited supra) are different. In that case, there was a common requisition against both Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. In the present case, separate requisitions are made. Therefore, decision in the case of Ashabai Shinde is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Be that as it may, the petitioners participated in the special meeting. They did not take objection in this regard, in the special meeting held to discuss no confidence motion. The objection at later stage is after thought. The petitioners have lost confidence of the 2/3rd members of the Grampanchayat. In democracy majority wish is required to be respected. In these facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order in my writ jurisdiction under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)