1 SSK/41 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2536 OF 2010 Shri Rajgonda Ramgonda Patil ....Petitioner Versus Shri Ramesh Abaso Bagdi & Ors. ...Respondents. Shri Balwant V. Patole, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos. 13 to 15. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 30th MARCH, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Patole, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos. 13 to 15. 2. The Petition pertains to no confidence motion carried against Petitioner by two-third majority. The Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Terwad. The Panchayat consisted of 13 members. Out of these 13 members, 11 members gave requisition to the Tahashildar requesting him to call for special meeting to discuss the no confidence motion against the Petitioner on 31st October, 2009. The Tahashildar, 2 thereafter, in accordance with section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as BVP Act) called special meeting of the members of the Village Panchayat, Terwad to discuss no confidence motion. The Petitioner participated in the said meeting. Ultimately, no confidence motion against Petitioner was carried by two-third majority. The Petitioner disputed the legality and validity of special meeting by filing an application before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the application. The Petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune and same was also dismissed and therefore, the Petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised challenge to the validity of no confidence motion on two grounds viz. notice of special meeting to discuss no confidence motion was not served upon the Petitioner and secondly, voting was not taken by secret ballot. So far as the first ground of objection is concerned, I do not find any merit, in as much as both the lower courts found that the Petitioner was served by affixing the notice on the main door of his house and he also participated in the proceedings of the said meeting. So far as second ground of objection that voting was not taken by secret ballot is concerned, the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No-confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 does not make any provisions that the voting should be taken by 3 secret ballot only. The provision for secret ballot is made in Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964. However, the said rules cannot be made applicable to the special meeting called to discuss no confidence motion. Thus, I find no substance in this objection also. 4. In any case, the Petitioner has lost confidence of two-third majority. In democratic set up, the will of the majority will have to be respected and therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the petition and interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is therefore, dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)