1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5791 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.A.S.Sawant, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Phatke, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.P.V.Barde, advocate holding for Mr.N.N.Desale, advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.08.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner was Sarpanch of Village Panchayat. No Confidence Motion was moved against the petitioner. There are total seven members of the said Panchayat. The said motion was passed by six members to one. The petitioner challenged the same before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner. The 2 Commissioner also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Mr.Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no proper service of the notice. The petitioner had prayed for the postponement of the meeting on account of the genuine reason i.e.the engagement ceremony of her son. The same was not considered. Even in the meeting there was no discussion on the subject and the petitioner was not allowed to speak on the said motion and to clarify the stand. The learned counsel further contends that there was no proper verification of the requisition inasmuch as the signatures on the said requisition were not of the members of the Panchayat. The Tahsildar failed in his duty to examine the same. The learned counsel further contends that the authorities have not considered all these aspects in correct perspective and thereby has arrived at an erroneous conclusion. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgment. The 3 petitioner was present in the meeting. As such it can not be said that the notice of the meeting was not properly served. All the members who had given the requisition were present in the meeting. They, nowhere denied their signatures on the said requisition. As such said objection also can not be sustained. Moreover, the petitioner has nowhere stated the date of the engagement ceremony of her son. Mere filing an application would not be sufficient and moreover, when the petitioner was present in the meeting, that reason also do not survive. The record also nowhere shows that the petitioner tried to put forth her stand in the meeting and she was not allowed. The petitioner has lost confidence of the majority of the house. No illegality has been committed while passing the impugned order. As such the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.08.08.2011. asp/office/wp5791.11 4