: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2160 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.2160 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.2160 OF 2009 Jayabai Mahadeo Nimangare ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.D.W. Bhosale for the Petitioner. Mr.Amit A. Karonde for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.J. Patel, AGP, for Respondent-State. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune dated 19th January, 2009 by which the petitioner’s election as a "Sarpanch" of Village Panchayat Pout, Taluka Mangalwedha on 11th October, 2008 is held invalid. The petitioner who is the member was voted out of office on the basis of the no confidence motion moved against her on 11th October, 2008. The Grampanchayat consists of 7 members, 5 of whom were present at the time of meeting. Significantly the petitioner did not remain present. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that out of the 5 members, one was disqualified and therefore could not have attended : 2 : the meeting or voted on that day. It is, therefore, submitted that the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner is invalid. 2. The petitioner aggrieved by the decision at the meeting preferred a dispute being Dispute No.42 of 2008 before the Collector, Solapur. This dispute was allowed and the no confidence motion was set aside. The Divisional Commissioner has set aside the decision of the Collector and found that the no confidence motion was correctly passed. 3. Even assuming the petitioner is correct that one of the persons present and voting was disqualified under Section 35(3), the motion has been carried by not less than 2/3rd of the total number of members who are entitled to sit and vote at the meeting of the Panchayat. Admittedly, therefore, out of six persons who were entitled to sit and vote at the meeting, 4 of them have voted against the petitioner and therefore she has been voted out of the office of Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat. 4. The Petition is rejected. .....