(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7432 OF 2009 Tahirabi Sayyad Ali, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Sarpanch, R/o. Tandala, Taluka : Mahur, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (Through Secretary, Rural Development Department). 2. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, Taluka & District : Aurangabad. 3. The Additional Collector, Taluka & District : Nanded. 4. The Village Panchayat, Tandala, Through Gram Sevak, Tandala, Taluka : Mahur, District : Nanded. 5. Nandu s/o. Waghoji Dakpre, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculturist. 6. Dattatray s/o. Honaji Jadhav, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Agriculturist. (2) 7. Bhagwan s/o. Waman Malkar, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 8. Malabai w/o. Vijay Jadhav, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 9. Dulsingh s/o. Bhiku Pawar, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 10.Bhasu s/o. Mega Pawar, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture. (Respondent nos.5 to 10 All residents of Tandala, Taluka : Mahur, District : Nanded ) .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. G.P. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Kendre, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 to 3. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER 2009. (3) COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent orders, one passed by the learned Additional Collector, Nanded, dated 22nd July 2009, thereby rejecting the dispute filed by the present petitioner against the "no confidence motion" passed on 25th March 2009, and the another order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dated 22nd September 2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 2. The motion of "no confidence" came to be passed against the petitioner by a majority of six against zero, in the meeting of Grampanchayat held on 25th March 2009. The petitioner was not present in the said meeting. Being aggrieved thereby, a dispute came to be filed before the Collector, which was rejected. Being further aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner. That also came to be dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 3. Mr. G.P. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the meeting was conveyed in the office of the Grampanchayat, but was, in fact, held in "Samaj Mandir". It is, therefore, submitted that since the petitioner was not knowing the place as to where actual meeting was to be held, he could not remain present in the meeting and, as such, a serious prejudice has been caused to him. Relying on the provisions of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 6 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959, he submits that the voting of the Grampanchayat has to be held in the office of the Village Panchayat. (4) 4. Mr. S.N. Kendre, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, supports the impugned orders. 5. Perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that both the authorities have found that though the place of the meeting was mentioned as office of Grampanchayat, as a matter of fact, the Grampanchayat did not have an office and as a routine, all the meetings of the Grampanchayat are held in the office of "Samaj Mandir". It has been found that all earlier meetings of the Grampanchayat were held in "Samaj Mandir" and, as such, the petitioner was very well knowing that the meeting would be conducted in "Samaj Mandir". It is further to be noted that in a Grampanchayat consisting of seven members, all the six members, except the petitioner, have supported the "no confidence motion". It is only the petitioner who had opposed the motion against her. 6. This court, in the case of Prabhawati Vijaykumar Khivsara Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2008(2) Mh.L.J. 274), relying on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of K. Narasimhiah Vs. H.C. Singri Gowda and others (AIR 1966 SC 330), has held that the "no confidence motion " which has been passed by a requisite majority, should not be interfered with, in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (5) 7. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7432