) 1 ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6253 OF 2009 Bhimsing s/o. Chandrasing Girase (Salunke), Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Chaugaon (Bk.), Age : 73 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Chaugaon (Bk.), Taluka : Sindkheda, District : Dhule. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Presiding Officer, Village Panchayat, Chaugaon (Bk.), Through Tahasildar, Sindkheda, Taluka : Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule. 2. The Additional Collector, Dhule. 3. The Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 4. Dagadu s/o. Chhagan Kapure, Upa-Sarpanch, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 5. Barku Daulat Sardar, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture. ) 2 ( 6. Hirabai Vedu Bhilale (Bhil), Age : 45 years, Occupation : Household. 7. Pramodini Suresh Sonawane, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Household. 8. Vishram Manik Sarkar, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 9. Bhatu Zaga Kapure, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture. Respondent nos.4 to 9, Members, Village Panchayat, Chaugaon (Bk.), At Chaugaon (Bk.), Taluka : Sindkheda, District : Dhule. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. Prakashing B. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.G. Shelke, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. R.S. Shinde, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 to 9. .......................... ) 3 ( CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17th August 2009, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, in Gram Panchayat Appeal No. 43/2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner, challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Dhule, in Gram Panchayat Dispute No. 29/2008, dated 31st March 2009, which inter alia challenging the "no confidence motion" passed against the petitioner in the meeting held on 27th December 2008. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the notice of "no confidence motion" was vague and, as such, the petitioner was deprived to explain the charges levelled against him. It is further submitted that the proceedings were held in a hasty manner without holding discussion on the subjects mentioned in the notice. It is further submitted that one member, by name, Pramodini Suresh Sonawane, was not present in the meeting and, as such, the proceedings were vitiated. 3. Mr. V.G. Shelke, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Mr. R.S. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.4 to 9, have supported the impugned order. ) 4 ( 4. Perusal of the "no confidence motion", so also, the orders passed by the learned Additional Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner would reveal that the motion of "no confidence" has been passed by 5 votes against 7. The learned Additional Collector, after perusing the record, has found that the meeting was held in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and after due deliberation, the motion of "no confidence" came to be passed. 5. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6253