IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 540 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 540 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 540 OF 2009 Shri Haridas Popat Patil. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Tahsildar, Nangaon & others. ... Respondents. Ms.Anita Bhaktwani for the petitioner. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 20th January 2009. DATED: 20th January 2009. DATED: 20th January 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 8th December, 2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik in Appeal No.79/2008 whereby appeal came to be dismissed and the order dated 8th September, 2008 passed by the Divisional Collector Nasik rejecting objections of the petitioner to the no-confidence motion came to be confirmed. 3. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner was a Sarpanch of Mangadne Grampanchayat, taluka- Nandgaon, district- Nashik. Notice dated 18th June, 2008 was sent to the petitioner and all other members informing them about no-confidence motion whereunder two grounds of no-confidence were mentioned. Out of seven, five members voted in favour of no-confidence resolution and resolution was adopted by 2/3 majority. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice of meeting and the proposed resolution of no-confidence were not given to the petitioner. The submission is misplaced since no such contention was raised by the petitioner before the Collector. Apart from this, the Divisional Commissioner has recorded that the notice was served on the petitioner. As such the contention raised is nothing but an afterthought. 5. The second contention raised is that the notice of meeting ought to have been that of 7 days instead of 8 days. The notice of no-confidence motion was served on the Tahasildar on 18th June, 2008. Thereafter, Tahasildar issued notice to all the members and the meeting was scheduled on 25th June, 2008. If the day of notice i.e. "18th June, 2008" is excluded, then, the meeting which took place can be said to be on 7th day. Therefore, the submission made in this behalf has no force. (see Smt.Manjuli v. Smt.Manjuli v. Smt.Manjuli v. C.J.Sr.Dvn., Wardha C.J.Sr.Dvn., Wardha C.J.Sr.Dvn., Wardha, 1969 Mh.L.J. 435) - 3 - 6. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the resolution of no-confidence is not only to be founded on the grounds of no-confidence motion but it must also be founded on one or more grounds mentioned in the notice given about intention to move it. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Laxman v. Gram Panchayat, Mangladevi Laxman v. Gram Panchayat, Mangladevi Laxman v. Gram Panchayat, Mangladevi, 1965 Mh.L.J. 50 (Note-102). 7. I was taken through the notice of no-confidence motion as well as minutes of the meeting recorded by the Tahasildar. Reading of the minutes of the meeting as a whole would clearly indicate that the grounds mentioned in the no-confidence motion were the grounds in the resolution and they were read over to all the members present in the meeting. They were discussed and, thereafter, the resolution was put to vote and adopted by 2/3 majority. In the circumstances, the last submission made is also devoid of any substance. Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Order accordingly. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)