SSK/ 1 WP/6692.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6692 OF 2011 Ashok Sopan Jadhav ....Petitioner Versus Shri Sadashiv Shankar Patil & Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Dipti Pawar i/b. Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. N. Bhosle, AGP for respondent nos. 12 to 14. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 20th August, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The writ petition arises out of provisions of Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Grampanchayat of Village – Kumbhari consists of 11 members. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the said Village Panchayat. However, one-third members of the panchayat gave requisition on 25th April, 2011 to the Tahasildar for calling meeting to discuss the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. The Tahasildar thereafter by issuing notice dated 25th April, 2011 i.e. same day, convened a special meeting of the grampanchayat on 30th April, 2011. This meeting was attended by ten members. The petitioner remained absent despite notice. No Confidence Motion, however, was passed unanimously. SSK/ 2 WP/6692.11 3. The petitioner disputed the validity of the No Confidence Motion as well as the special meeting by filing dispute application before the Collector under Section 35(3-B) of the said Act. The said application was dismissed. The petitioner’s appeal before the Divisional Commissioner was also dismissed, and therefore, the present petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the validity of the No Confidence Motion on the ground that notice of the special meeting was not served upon the petitioner. This contention is without any merit as the finding of fact is recorded by both the lower authorities below that the petitioner was served with the notice of the special meeting along with copy of the requisition and the petitioner’s acknowledgment is there on record. The counsel further submits that the grounds on which the No Confidence Motion was passed and the grounds given in requisition are different. I do not find any substance in this submission also, as there is no provision under which the No Confidence Motion is required to be passed only on the grounds mentioned in requisition. The counsel lastly submitted that resolution of No Confidence Motion had been passed without there being any proposer or seconder. The counsel relied upon the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules,1959 . I am not impressed by this submission also, as the requirement of proposer and of the seconder under the said Rules is not mandatory and same is held to be directory. SSK/ 3 WP/6692.11 A reference can be made to the judgment of a learned Single Judge passed on 26 th July, 2011 in Writ Petition No.167 of 2011. The petitioner has lost confidence of all the other members of the Grampanchayat. In democracy, the will of the majority is required to be respected. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)