1 WP 8709.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8709 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. M.P.Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. ......................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17/11/2011. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Asola. The present respondent moved a motion for no confidence against the petitioner. The Tahsildar called for the special meeting. In the said special meeting, the motion of no confidence was passed by majority of 10 members to 2 members. The petitioner challenged the same before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector rejected the dispute filed by the petitioner. Against that, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, 2 WP 8709.2011 Aurangabad. The said Appeal was also dismissed. The petitioner has assailed the same in the present Writ Petition. 2. Mr. Kale, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no discussion had taken place in the said meeting on the motion of no confidence. There was no proposal and no seconder in the said meeting. Rules 17 and 18 of the Bombay Village Panchayat ( Meeting Rules ), 1959 [ For short, ‘ said Rules ’ ] describe that the motion has to be proposed and seconded by the members. In view of the fact that there was no proposal and seconder to the motion in the meeting, the said meeting is vitiated. The learned counsel further contends that perusal of the proceedings book shows that no discussion had taken place. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that no discussion had taken place should have to be accepted. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to speak in the said meeting. The petitioner is the democratically elected Sarpanch and the petitioner can not be stripped of his office in such a casual manner. 3. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7 support the order and contends that the discussion had taken place as Rules 17 and 18 of the said Rules are directory and not mandatory. 3 WP 8709.2011 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the proceedings book and the orders. 5. The notice of the meeting was served on the petitioner. The petitioner had attended the meeting. It has been noted in the proceedings book that the discussion had taken place and thereafter the motion was put to vote and the motion has been passed by 10 members to 2 members. This shows that the petitioner has lost confidence of the over-whelming majority of the house. More over, in Writ Petition No. 7293 of 2011, I have already held that Rules 17 and 18 of the said Rules are directory in nature. 6. The other contention of Mr. Kale, the learned counsel that one day’s clear notice is not given, can not be sustained in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sow. Sangeeta W/o Ramesh Ranvir V/s The Presiding Officer/Tahsildar and others reported in 1999 ( 2 ) Bom.C.R. - 213. 7. Both the authorities have also held that the discussion and debate in the meeting of no confidence motion has taken place. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner wanted to speak and he was not allowed to speak in the meeting. 4 WP 8709.2011 8. In view of the above, the Writ Petition being sans merit, is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 8709.2011