1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2914 OF 2010 Madhukar s/o. Maroti Bhange, R/o. Vaijwadi Lamantanda, Tq. Parli (V), Dist. Beed. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. Shri. S.G. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for State. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 5th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard respective counsel appearing for parties. 2. The motion of no confidence is passed against the petitioner with more than 2/3 majority and the proceedings of the meeting were subjected to challenge in the appeal, which was tendered before the Addl. Collector, which came to be dismissed on 6.2.2010. However, appeal presented to the Divisional Commissioner against the order passed by the Addl. Collector has been confirmed in view of judgment and order dated 23rd of March 2010 and the orders of both the authorities are subjected to challenge in this writ petition. 2 3. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that in fact the requisition in question is stated to be submitted on 24th of August 2009 whereas the meeting is convened by the Tahsildar on 1st September 2009 which according to the petitioner is not in consonance with the Rules. From record, it transpires that the requisition is tendered with the Tahsildar in accordance with the Rules on 27.8.2009 and the same has been endorsed by Tahsildar on 27.8.2009 and he directed to convene the meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence on 1st September 2009, which is in accordance with the Rules. Further, it transpires that the meeting is required to be convene within 7 days and the Tahsildar has acted in accordance with the Rules. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no interference is required to caused in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition, therefore, stands rejected. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/wp2914.10