1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5407 OF 2009 Lalchand Shivram Bhoir .. Petitioner Vs District Collector Thane and ors .. Respondents Mr. Anilkumar Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr A. R. Pitale for respondent nos 4 to 7 and 9. Mr P. B. Gujar, for respondent no.8. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP, for Respondent nos 1 to 3 and 11. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 10/08/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the orders passed by the authorities below in the proceedings arising from the resolution passed by the village Panchayat against the petitioner-Sarpanch expressing no confidence in him. Mr Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the orders passed by the authorities below deserve to be set aside on two grounds. Firstly, that one of the members, who was disqualified to be a member of the Gram Panchayat on the date of the meeting, had filed an appeal T 2 challenging his disqualification and the appeal was allowed and, the order of disqualification was set aside. In view thereof the action of preventing him from participating in the meeting was illegal and hence the entire proceedings of the meetings vitiated. Secondly, he submitted that one another member, Gurunath B Jadhav, who was present in the meeting, was not allowed to speak in the meeting. 3. The meeting was held on 20.12.2008 and it was presided over by the Tahsildar. He recorded the minutes of the meeting. The minutes of the meeting are placed on record as Exhibit-C. I have perused the minutes of the meeting, which show that all the members were allowed to participate in the meeting. The Judgment relied upon by Mr Patil in support of the second ground of challenge in Ashok Krishnakant Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors, 2000(4) Bom C.R. 724, in my opinion, would not help the petitioner. In that case, the Tahsildar had specifically denied permission to one of the members of the panchayat to speak at the meeting. Hence, the second ground of challenge, in the facts of the present case, deserves to be rejected. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, it appears that the member, who was disqualified, filed appeal after 20.12.2008,i.e after the meeting and that the order of 3 disqualification was set aside on 26.2.22009. It is thus clear that on the date of the meeting he was not qualified to participate in the meeting. I do not find any fault in not allowing him to participate in the meeting. In the circumstances, this petition deserves no interference by this court in exercise of its extremely limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)