1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.946/2011 SOU VANDANA VANWAS PACHGHARE ..VS.. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri H. D.Dangre, advocate for the petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 24, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Additional Collector, Bhandara on 28.10.2010, and the one passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur on 24.1.2011, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner against the ‘no confidence motion’ passed against the petitioner on 12.8.2010, at Gram Panchayat Nilaj (Khurd). It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order that the due procedure was complied before passing of the ‘no confidence motion’ against the petitioner. There were 7 members present at the meeting and 5 out of the 7 members had voted against the petitioner and in favour of the ‘no confidence motion’. Since the motion was passed by 2/3rd majority, the authorities held that the application filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there was violation of the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) 2 Rules 1959 as the proposer and seconder had not spoken in support of the motion and hence, there was no chance for the petitioner to refute the allegations made against the petitioner, is not well founded. There is nothing in the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules 1959 making it mandatory for the proposer and the seconder to speak in support of the motion and have a discussion on the allegations made against the petitioner/ Sarpanch. In case the petitioner wanted to speak at the meeting he was free to do so. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that because the other members did not have any discussion, there was no occasion for the petitioner to speak against the motion, is also not well founded and is liable to be rejected. Since the petition is devoid of merits, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP