: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5513 OF 2009 Suresh Kallappa Turabe ... Petitioner V/s. The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.R.V. Bansode for Petitioner Mr.R.M. Patne, AGP, for Respondents 1, 2 and 3 Mr.S. Sakhare for Respondent State Nos.4 to 14 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 3rd JULY, 2009 P. C.: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner upholding the decision of the Panchayat to remove him as a Sarpanch of the village Bhandar-Kavathe, Tal. South Solapur, Solapur. The petitioner contends that a no confidence motion was passed against him at a meeting held on 17.2.2009. This meeting was held consequent upon a notice dated 13.2.2009 calling for a special requisition meeting. The petitioner admittedly was served with the notice of the meeting and has attended the same. 2. Three points have been urged on behalf of the petitioner, namely: i) that the petitioner was not permitted to speak at the meeting held to pass the no confidence motion against him; (ii) that besides the proposer and the seconder of the resolution : 2 : only one other person spoke at the meeting and therefore, there was no debate as required under the provisions of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act r/w the Bombay Village Panchayat Meeting Rules; and (iii) that the present notice for holding an requisition meeting contains the same grounds as were contained in an earlier requisition moved against the petitioner in 2007. 3. On a perusal of the record produced by the learned AGP, I am satisfied that the Tehsildar had given an opportunity to the petitioner to speak at the meeting. Not only the petitioner, but others present at the meeting were invited to speak. The Tehsildar has recorded that the petitioner did not exercise his option of speaking at the meeting and had in fact declined to do so. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was informed by the Tehsildar that he should submit his views in writing at the meeting rather than speaking. This is not reflected from the record of the Tehsildar where it is clearly mentioned that the Sarpanch was requested to express his views and he refused to do so. The record further indicates that all the persons present and voting were given ample opportunity to speak at the meeting. Three persons have exercised their right, including the proposer and seconder of the resolution. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that nobody but three persons spoke at the meeting and, therefore, the proceedings were illegal is unsustainable. It is not expected of the Tehsildar to force a person to speak at a meeting held for passing a no confidence motion against the Sarpanch. It is for each member to decide whether he wants to exercise this option. Three person have done so and, therefore, in my opinion, this submission is without merit. Merely because nobody spoke against the motion would not necessarily mean that the members had no opportunity to debate the issue. : 3 : 4. The last submission with respect to the grounds in the resolution being the same as were mentioned in the earlier resolution of 2007, is also without merit. If it is found that the Sarpanch continued to indulge in the same acts as were complained of in 2007, it is always open for the members of the Panchayat to requisition a meeting to pass a no confidence motion on those grounds. There is no material to indicate that the motion at that stage had been defeated or that the resolution had been acted upon in 2007. 5. Petition rejected.