1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8427 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. G.V.Wani, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V.B.Ghatge, A.G.P. for State. Mr. V.B.Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 to 10. ........................... [ CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. ] DATE : 11/12/2009. PER COURT : 1. By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the Order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Jalgaon dated 12/6/2009 and the Order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik dated 21/10/2009, thereby rejecting the dispute and the Appeal filed by the present petitioner challenging No Confidence Motion passed by the Gram Panchayat, Karki dated 11/5/2009. 2. Mr. Wani, the learned counsel 2 appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the meeting which was held for considering no confidence motion was not held in accordance with law in as much as copies of no confidence motion, were not given to the Tahsildar. He further submits that 2 members who participated in the meeting, could not voted in the said meeting in as much as proceedings for disqualification are pending against them. 3. Mr. V.B.Patil, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 5 to 10 submits that since no confidence motion is passed by majority, no question of secrete voting arises. 4. In so far as the contention of the petitioner regarding 2 members not entitled to participate in the meeting is concerned, admittedly, no orders as to disqualification are passed against them. As long as the order of disqualification is not passed against a member, he would be entitled to participate in the meeting. As such, no merit. 5. The contention regarding non compliance of certain provisions is concerned, it can be seen that both the 3 authorities have concurrently held that no confidence motion has been passed after complying all the necessary requirements. Apart from that, in view of the view taken by this Court in case of Anandsing Dongar Kuwar V/s State of Maharashtra through Tahsildar, Sakri and others in Writ Petition No. 4529 of 2009, interference on that ground is also not permissible in as much as no confidence motion is passed having requisite majority of 2/3rd members of Gram Panchayat. Hence, rejected. [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP8427.09