-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8651 OF 2009 Shivaji S. Saptade. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Sandeep Salunkhe for petitioner. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent nos. 1 to 3. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : March 15, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Salunkhe, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. M. P. Thakur, learned AGP for the State. The panchayat of village Tarapur consists of 13 members. In the general election held in the year 2006, the petitioner alongwith 12 others were elected as members of the said grampanchayat. Thereafter on 25th November 2006, the petitioner got elected as Sarpanch of the village. 2. On 17th June 2009, Nine members of the grampanchayat gave application to the Tehsildar requiring him to call a special meeting of the grampanchayat. Accordingly meeting was held on 23rd June 2009. In this meeting 10 members, including the petitioner, were present and the motion of no confidence was carried by 2/3rd , (i.e., 9 : 1) majority. The petitioner filed an application before the Collector invoking the provisions of sub- section 3B of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. (for short, “the said Act.”) and disputed the validity of the motion. The Collector -: 2 :- dismissed the application. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner under section 35(3C) of the said Act. The said appeal was also dismissed and therefore the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Salunkhe, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a special meeting which was held to discuss the no confidence motion, the petitioner specifically demanded voting by secrete ballot, however, his request was rejected and voting was taken by show of hands. He invited my attention to Rule 10(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch & Upa- Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 and submitted that the Tehsildar was duty- bound to take voting by secret ballot. In this regard, he relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Janendrakumar Phoolchand Daftari v/s. Rajendra Ramsukh Mishra and Ors [1994 Mh.L.J. 100]. Mr. Salunkhe also submitted that out of 13, 2 members were disqualified under the provisions of section 14(1)(g) of the said Act and therefore could not have participated in the special meeting which was held to discuss the no confidence motion. 4. I do not find any merit in both the submissions of Mr. Salunkhe. There are separate Rules, namely, the Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpanch & Upa- Sarpanch (No confidence motion) Rules, 1975 which governs the no confidence motion. The Rules on which reliance is placed by Mr. Salunkhe are applicable to the election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpahanch and therefore cannot be made applicable to the special meeting conveyed to discuss the no -: 3 :- confidence motion. The Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpanch & Upa- Sarpanch (No confidence motion) Rules, 1975 are silent regarding voting by secret ballot. 5. So far as the second ground of objection is concerned, the said two members were disqualified by the competent authority on 7th August 2009, i.e., subsequent to the special meeting held on 23rd June 2009 wherein the no confidence motion was carried. 6. No confidence motion against the petitioner is passed by 2/3rd majority. In a democratic set up the will of the majority has to be respected. In the lgiht of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is therefore dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)