KPP -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4288 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 150 OF 2011 Sou. Rupali Pandurang Dhokale ...Appellant vs. State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Mr. S.S. Salunkhe for the appellant. Mr. A.D. Kango, AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED , JJ. DATE: JUNE 20, 2011. P.C. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25th August, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 4288 of 2010. The appellant was elected as Sarpanch of a village panchayat. A no confidence motion was moved against him and out of 7 members of the village panchayat, 6 voted in support of the no confidence motion. The appeal preferred by the appellant was also rejected by the Collector. The learned single Judge in paragraphs 2 and 3 has KPP -2- observed as under: 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that no confidence motion is illegal as the minutes of the meeting do not record that the said motion was moved by a member and was seconded by another member. His second contention is that one of the members has filed an affidavit dated 4.5.2010 stating therein that he was put under pressure and therefore he was forced to vote in favour of the no confidence motion. 3. Admittedly, the 1st contention raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner was not raised specifically either before the Collector or before the Appellate Authority. No such ground is taken in the application preferred by the petitioner before the Collector. Thus the said factual contention was not raised before both the authorities and therefore respondents had no opportunity to deal with the said factual contention. Hence, for the first time in writ petition, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the said contention as the same will cause prejudice to the reespondents.” 3. The learned counsel for the appellant frankly admitted that now election of Sarpanch is over and a new Sarpanch is elected. Considering the reasoning of the learned single Judge as well as considering the fact that a new Sarpanch is already elected, we do not deem it fit to entertain this appeal. We also do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge. In view of the above, the Letters Patent Appeal and the Civil Applications are accordingly dismissed. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.