1 wp 7666.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7666 OF 2011 Kushalrao Fakirrao Nalawade .. Petitioner Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and others .. Respondents Shri C. R. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri R. V. Gore, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 10. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 07TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is working as a Up-Sarpanch. A motion of no confidence was moved by the members of Gram Panchayat. The meeting was convened and in the said meeting no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner by 2/3 majority. 2. The petitioner thereafter moved the Additional Collector by filing an appeal. The Additional Collector dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2 wp 7666.11 Divisional Commissioner, who also dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has assailed the said orders in the present writ petition. 3. Shri Thorat, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rules governing the meeting for no confidence have not been followed. The respondents are required to scrupulously follow the Rules of 1959, Meeting Rules. In view of the fact that the said rules have not been followed, the meeting for no confidence stand vitiated. The learned counsel further contends that even the charges which were leveled against the petitioner are not substantiated. Even no opportunity was given to the petitioner to speak in the meeting and to defend him. In view of the fact that no constructive debate had taken place in the meeting. The meeting is vitiated. 4. Shri Gore, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 10 supports the order. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the judgments. The proceedings show that subject was debated in the said meeting. In view of that it cannot be said that the 3 wp 7666.11 petitioner was not accorded opportunity to put forth his stand. The proper notice for convening the meeting was issued. The notices were served on all the members including the petitioner and subject was taken up for debate. It shows that the meeting rules were followed and all the rules governing the meeting of no confidence have been followed. The resolution has been passed by more than 2/3 majority. The petitioner has lost the will of the majority and the confidence of the house. No illegality has been committed while passing the orders. The writ petition is dismissed, however, no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11