LPA No. 274/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 274 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5518 OF 2011 Smt. Mahanandabai w/o. Shekurao Shinde, R/o. Vatkali, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Hingoli. ....Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. G.B. Kulkarni, Advocate for appellant. Mr. S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for State/respondent. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 7th October, 2011. ORDER : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. The letters patent appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5518/2011. The appellant is a Member of Village Panchayat, Vatkali, Tahsil and District Hingoli and she was elected to the post of Sarpanch by majority. No confidence motion was brought against her on 18.4.2011 and in special meeting called by the LPA No. 274/11 2 Village Panchayat, the no confidence motion was passed against the appellant by more than 3/4 majority. The appellant did not attend the special meeting. 2. The appellant preferred appeal against the resolution before Additional Collector, Hingoli. It is her case that no opportunity was given to her to explain and discuss the allegations made against her in no confidence motion. The Collector dismissed the appeal. This decision was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. But the Divisional Commissioner also dismissed the appeal. This decision of Divisional Commissioner dated 15.7.2011 was challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition by holding that there is sufficient record to show that the notice was duly served on the appellant and she preferred not to attend the meeting. 3. The advocate of the appellant was heard, both for admission of letters patent appeal and for the civil application. 4. The relevant record was available and this Court has perused the relevant record. The record shows that the Village Panchayat has nine members and out of the nine members, eight LPA No. 274/11 3 members gave notice of no confidence motion. Allegations were against the appellant that she was not taking in confidence the members of Village Panchayat, she was not taking interest in development works of Village Panchayat, she had neglected the work of public water supply and electricity supply, she had avoided to implement the job scheme like Jawahar Rojgar Hami Yojna and she was not calling Gram Sabha. There was also allegation that she was not implementing the resolutions made by the Village Panchayat. All these subjects were discussed in the special meeting called by the Tahsildar. All the eight members, who attended the meeting, voted in favour of resolution of no confidence. 5. The record shows that the notice of the meeting was duly issued and it was served on the appellant. The members, who attended the meeting, have signed on the resolution and in the proceeding which was filed by the appellant, they stuck to the stand taken by them. Thus, as per the record, the appellant avoided to attend the meeting, where she could have taken the opportunity to explain and discuss the subjects. As she preferred not to attend the meeting, the ground taken by her in proceeding is not available to her. The learned Single Judge of this Court has considered all these circumstances and there is no reason to LPA No. 274/11 4 interfere in the order made by the learned Single Judge. No case is made out for admission of the matter and so the appeal stands dismissed. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/