1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2010 Yesu s/o Surjan Thakare and others Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.A.G.Magare, advocate for petitioners. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2328 OF 2010 Yesu s/o Surjan Thakare and others Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.A.G.Magare, advocate for petitioners. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 09th April, 2010. P.C.: 1 The challenge raised in the petitions is in respect of order passed by Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik, on 13.10.2009 confirming the order passed by Additional Collector, Nandurbar on 15.06.2009. 2 2 The meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch was held on 26.02.2009 and the motion of no confidence came to be passed against Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch in the meeting held on the said date. The decision adopted in the meeting was subjected to challenge by presenting appeals by concerned office bearers, which came to be heard and disposed of by Additional Collector, Nandurbar. It was contended that requisition was tendered to the Tahsildar on 16.02.2009 requesting him to call for a meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence. The Tahsildar issued notices to the members thereby informing that a meeting is convened on 26.02.2009. Notices were directed to be issued on 18.02.2009 to the members as well as office bearers. It was the contention of the petitioners before the appellate forum that the meeting is not held in accordance with provisions of Section 35(2) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, as the meeting was not convened by the Tahsildar within seven days, as contemplated by Section 35(1) of the Act. The objection raised by office bearers i.e. Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch was accepted by the appellate authority and motion of no confidence adopted in the meeting of 26.02.2009 was quashed and set aside. The orders passed by appellate authorities are subjected to challenge in both these petitions. 3 The question agitated in the petitions has already been adjudicated and is no more res integra. A reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the matter of Mandabai Balnath Rohom Vs. Ashok Fakira Chandar, reported in 2002 (1) MhLJ 916. The question agitated before the Court was, as to whether it is necessary for the Tahsildar to hold meeting of panchayat for considering motion of no confidence of which notice has been received by Tahsildar under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act, within seven days of receipt of such notice; or whether only notice calling 3 upon the meeting of Panchayat should be issued within seven days from the date of receipt of requisition of no confidence by the Tahsildar. While answering the issue, this Court has observed in para 15 of the judgment, that: “Section 35(2) of the said Act requires that the Tahsildar shall not only issue the notice convening the meeting within seven days but, also convene the meeting itself within seven days to deal with the matter pertaining to the No-confidence Motion in terms of notice received by him under Section 35(1) of the Act.” Similar view adopted by learned Single Judge of this Court has been confirmed by Division Bench in the matter of Ganesh Raghunath Samel Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2002 (4) Bom.C.R. 425. 4 In view of the decisions cited above, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in both the petitions. The decisions rendered by appellate authorities do not call for any interference. Writ Petitions are devoid of substance. 5 Hence, both the petitions stand rejected summarily. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp232710