1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.11 of 2008 In Writ Petition No.5519 of 2007 (Decided) (Ashabai w/o Gopal Shinde v. State of Mah. and others) And Letters Patent Appeal No.12 of 2008 In Writ Petition No.5520 of 2007 (Decided) (Motiram s/o Narayan Nanote v. State of Mah. and others) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri O.Y. Kashid, Advocate for Appellants. CORAM : A.P. Deshpande & R.C. Chavan, JJ. DATE : 10th January, 2008 These Letters Patent Appeals take exception to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petitions calling in question the validity of the motions of no confidence carried out by the requisite majority of two-thirds in a Gram Panchayat meeting. Admittedly, the present appellants did not attend the meeting wherein the no confidence motions were considered. Two grounds are pressed in service with a view to question the legality of the resolutions passed in the said meeting. The first ground is that the voting ought to have been by a secret ballot and not by a show of hands, as the two no confidence 2 motions were taken into consideration in the same meeting and the same would result in a confusion. The learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute that a demand for a secret ballot could only be made by a majority of members. If this be the position, there was no question of such request made by the appellants being granted. Even otherwise, the appellants were absent in the meeting. The next ground is that both the resolutions could not have been put to vote simultaneously. The record reveals that two-third majority of members were against the present appellants. The legislative intent in providing for motion of no confidence in the Act is to respect the wishes of two-third majority at the given point of time and if that be so and two-third majority of members were against the appellants, there is no reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pdl