FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7665 OF 2008 ___________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|___________________________________ Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 and the learned A.G.P. for the State. 2 This petition takes exception to the resolution of No Confidence which is at Exh.”A” dated 12.12.2008 passed by the respondent No.4 – Municipal Council, Hadgaon under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships (Amendment) Act, 2004 and notice dated 15.12.2008 for calling meeting for nomination / election of President of Municipal Council, Hadgaon and consequential process and further action and election held on 19.12.2008. It is not in dispute that in pursuance to the no confidence motion, elections have already taken place and the post of President has been filled in. 3 The learned Counsel for Respondent no.4 invited my attention to the reported judgment of this Court in case of Raju Kisan Awale vs. State of Maharashtra & others [2000(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 839], and submitted that in case of no confidence motion against the President of Municipal Council, the petition on the ground that motion of no confidence does not state the reasons on which it is moved and as the removal from post entails civil consequence, procedure under Article 311 of Constitution should apply. The learned Counsel, therefore, relying on the aforesaid decision would submit that the said decision of no confidence motion is the domestic matter which is the domain of the house and in writ jurisdiction, no interference is called for. 4 It is not in dispute that subsequently, in pursuance of the no confidence motion, elections have taken place electing new President. In view of this position, I think, going into the merits of the writ petition, may be a futile exercise. Leaving the law point open raised in this petition open, the writ petition is dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J). 10.08.2009. PLK/#