(1) WP. 1670.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1670 OF 2010 Hanuman S/o Uttamrao Jangle .. Petitioner VERSUS Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and others .. Respondents Mr. R.V. Gore, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for the respondent nos.1 to 3-State Mr. A.A. Jagatkar,Advocate for the respondent nos. 5 to 9 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 21ST JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard learned counsel. The petitioner was Sarpanch against whom no confidence motion was mooted. It was discussed in the meeting dated 5.1.2009. It was passed by majority as 5 of the persons voted in favour of the motion whereas two, including the petitioner himself, did not caste vote in favour of the motion. Out of 7 members, 5 were found to have supported the motion. The meeting was presided over by the Tahsildar. Contention of the petitioner, was that he was not given due opportunity to clarify his stand in the meeting. His further (2) WP. 1670.2010 contention was that the members did not discuss the motion and the motion was passed without any deliberations and therefore it is illegal. The Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner rejected both the contentions of the petitioners. 2] Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appeal filed by the petitioner was heard behind his back. He would submit that the Advocate of the petitioner was absent at the time of hearing of the appeal and yet the appeal was decided on merits. He contended that the impugned judgment of the learned Divisional Commissioner deserves to be quashed and the matter is required to be sent back for de-novo decision on merits after hearing the petitioner. 3] One cannot be oblivious of the legal position that the enquiry into the grievances about absence of opportunity at the time of no confidence motion is of summary nature. It is not a regular trial to find out guilt or any fact as such. The authority is required to satisfy itself about due procedure followed before declaring the Sarpanch dis-qualified. In my opinion, that was duly followed and the absence of the petitioner’s Advocate at the time of hearing of the appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner may be of strategic nature. On such ground, remand of the matter is not necessary in order to facilitate the petitioner to continue to (3) WP. 1670.2010 remain in the Office. No substance. The Petition is dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp