1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5622/2009. ( Laxman N. Khond -: versus :- The State of Maharashtra and others . ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 07, 2010. Heard Shri A. Parchure, with Shri Saoji, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mrs. T.D. Khade, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 6, 9, 11 and 12. By placing reliance upon the recent judgment of this Court reported at 2009 [5] Mh. L.J. 835 (Budhiya Dayaram Janunkar .vrs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati) and Division Bench judgment reported at 2000 [4] Mh. L.J. 197 (Ashok Krushnakant Mohta .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others ), petitioner argues that as petitioner was not given opportunity to address the meeting and to defend himself, the motion of no confidence as carried is vitiated and proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside. Attention is invited to the grounds on which no confidence was sought and it is argued that, those grounds are vague and have been fabricated only with a view to oust the petitioner, that too 2 after 4 years of completion of his term as Sarpanch. It is contended that the meeting was not held at the place scheduled, but was at entertainment center, and in it the petitioner was not given opportunity to address the members present. It is contended that, both the authorities have not considered these facts and hence, the order dated 31.08.2009 passed by the Additional Collector and order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Additional Collector are liable to be quashed and set aside. Mrs. Khade, learned A.G.P., as also Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondents, point out that though meeting was held at entertainment center, the petitioner was very much present and hence, no prejudice is caused to him by change of place. It is further pointed out that, no grievance about the service of notice contrary to Rule 2[2] of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa- sarpanch (No confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, has been made in the said appeal, or in the proceeding before the Presiding Officer. It is also contended that the petitioner moved an application in writing to hold voting by secret ballot and accordingly secret ballot was arranged. 6 members voted in favour of no confidence resolution and 3 opposed it. It has been therefore carried by majority. The perusal of records made available with the petition, all proceedings and impugned order show that the petitioner was present in the meeting and he participated in it. There is no grievance made any where, that the petitioner was prohibited from addressing the meeting. In such circumstances, the grounds sought to be raised, are misconceived. 3 The judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Budhiya Dayaram Janunkar .vrs. Additional Commissioner (supra), only emphasized need of separate notice to Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch for conducting the meeting to consider no confidence against both of them. It has been observed that the purpose of such notice is to give opportunity to such Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch to address members of Panchayat Samiti. In view of the finding above, this ruling is not relevant in the present matter. In Ashok Mohta .vrs. State of Maharashtra (supra), facts that Presiding Officer [Tahsildar], there declined permission to member to speak and address the meeting. There is no such refusal by Tahsildar in the present matter. Said ruling therefore, has no relevance. No case is made out warranting interference with the concurrent orders. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Shri Parchure, the learned counsel for petitioner states that this order may be stayed for a period of two weeks, so as to enable the petitioner to challenge this order further. Other learned Counsel appearing for respondents are opposing the request, however, in the interest of justice, the order is stayed till 25.01.2010. The stay shall cease to operate automatically thereafter. JUDGE Rgd.