:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2879 OF 2008 Mr. Sharad Shamrao Kamble ..Petitioner Vs. Divisional Commissioner Pune Division and ors. ..Respondents Mr. Dilip Bodake for petitioner. Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 24, 2008. Date : April 24, 2008. Date : April 24, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Bodake the learned counsel for the petitioner who has been unseated from the post of Sarpanch of village panchayat Hivarwadi in Satara District on account of the motion of no confidence passed against him with the majority of 5:2. He challenged the same before the Collector by filing Application No. 58 of 2006 and the same was allowed by the Additional Collector as per his judgment and order dated 31/1/2007. The motion of no confidence passed on 3/11/2006 was set aside. Consequently, the :2: five members of the village panchayat who had voted in favour of the motion of no confidence, filed Appeal No. 8 of 2007 before the Divisional Commissioner at Pune and as per the impugned judgment and order dated 1/4/2008, the said appeal has been allowed by the Divisional Commissioner and the order passed by the Additional Collector on 31/1/2007 has been set aside by upholding the motion of no confidence. 2. The Additional Collector allowed the application filed by the petitioner solely on the ground that in the meeting held on 3/11/2006, the members discussed on the subjects which were not mentioned or which were different from the subjects mentioned in the notice of no confidence submitted to the Collector on 30/10/2006. The Divisional Commissioner held that the Additional Collector committed a grave error and in support of this view he relied upon the law laid down in the case of Bandopant Shankarro Mallewar vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. [1997(1) Mh.L.J.52] and in the case of Babubhai Muljibhai Patel vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot and ors. [AIR 1974 SC 2105]. :3: 3. Mr. Bodake the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the relevant Rules namely the Mumbai Village Panchayat Sarpanch and Upsarpanch (No Confidence Motion) and more particularly Rule No.2 therein. It is very clear as per the scheme of the said Rules that the subjects/reasons on the basis of which the no confidence motion is moved are not mandatory and what is mandatory is giving notice as contemplated under Rule 2 of the said Rules. In the procedural compliances of issuing notice by the Tahsildar there was no infirmity noticed by both the authorities below and, therefore, the reason given by the Additional Collector in allowing the application was unsustainable. The Divisional Commissioner rightly stepped in and corrected the manifest error committed by the Additional Collector. 4. Hence, this petition fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected summarily. :4: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)