1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1509 of 2008 [M.S. Pawar Vs. State of Mah. & ors.] ` Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 02nd April,2008. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner calls in question the Vote of No Confidence, which is passed against him and upheld in the challenge, on the ground that the meeting ought to be governed by Bombay Village Panchayats Meeting Rules, 1959. 3. The emphasis is being given on the collectivity regarding of Rules 17 and 39 aforesaid. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on following reported Judgments to substantiate contention:- [a] Bhaskar Vithobaji Bhajipale Vs. Addl. Commr. & RDMA & ors. [Writ Petition No. 3195/93, decided on 26th April, 1994], 2 [b] Ashok Krishnakant Mehta Vs. State of Mah. & ors. [2000 (4) Mh. L.J. 197], and [c] Ramchandra Ballu Rathod Vs. Addl. Commr., Amravati Divn. & ors.[Letters Patent Appeal No. 78 of 2007, decided on 23rd March, 2007]. 5. The petitioner banks upon Judgment in Bhaskar Bhajipale's case [supra]. This Court has considered this Judgment. In the scheme of Section 35, read with the Bombay Village Panchayats Vote of No Confidence on Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch Rules, 1975, need of proposing and seconding such motion is not prescribed. Rules 17 and 39 referred to in para 3 have no application. 6. Thus, the question is no more res in tegra and is already decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindurao Dnyanu Shirtode & another Vs. State of Mah. & ors. [1998 (4) ALL MR 470]. 7. In the circumstances, Petition has no merits. It is, therefore, dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 3