1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2381/2007 Amar Pralhadrao Shingne ..vs.. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati and Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 5 th February, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Gordey, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Wandile, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Gawande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 8. 2. The petitioner, by filing this petition, challenges the no confidence motion passed against him by 2/3rd majority. The petitioner's dispute as contemplated under Section 35 (3- B) and appeal under Section 35 (3-C) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 are already dismissed by the Collector and Commissioner, respectively. 3. Mr. Gordey, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no confidence motion deserves to be quashed and set aside on the grounds namely (i) the petitioner was not given an opportunity to participate in the proceeding of the 2 special meting which was called to discuss the motion of no confidence, (b) though he demanded the voting by secret ballet papers, the voting was taken by raising hands and, (c) out of five members voted in favour of the no confidence motion, three members were disqualified subsequent to the passing of no confidence motion for non production of caste validity certificate. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and after going through the material on record coupled with the relevant provisions, I do not see any merit in the submissions of Mr. Gordey. 5. So far as the first submission is concerned, the same is without any substance in view of the proceeding of the special meeting annexed at Exh.-D to this petition, which categorically shows that the petitioner was not only present in the special meeting but also participated in the proceeding. 6. The next submission of Mr. Gordey, regarding voting by secret ballet papers also, in my opinion, is without any 3 merit inasmuch as Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 or Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpancha and Upasarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, do not make any provisions about the voting by secret ballet papers. Mr. Gordey, in this regard, submitted that since there are lacunae in the aforesaid provisions, the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpancha and Upasarpancha) Elections Rules 1964 can be read into. This submission, in my opinion, does not hold water inasmuch as both the above said rules namely Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpancha and Upasarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 and Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpancha and Upasarpancha) Elections Rules 1964 rules operate in the different fields and, therefore, the latter cannot be made applicable to the no confidence motions. 7. This takes me to consider the last contention of Mr. Gordey, learned counsel for the petitioner that three members were disqualified subsequent to the passing of No Confidence Motion, which is also without any substance. The 4 subsequent disqualification, in my opinion, does not invalidate the option already exercised by the members. 8. The no confidence motion is passed by 2/3rd majority. I am of the considered opinion that in democracy will of the majority is to be respected. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale