1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2307 OF 2009 Subhash Bapurao Lohakare ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Sandeep Salunkhe for the Petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 8 and 9. Mr. A. M. Joshi for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : APRIL 6 , 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Salunkhe, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Rayrikar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 8 and 9, and Mr. Joshi for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. 2. The Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Village Osade, Taluka Velha, District Pune. The Village panchayat consist of seven members. The requisition was given by five member of the Gram Panchayat to the Tahasildar on 18th July, 2008, requesting him to call for 2 special meeting to discuss no confidence motion. The Tahsildar accordingly called special meeting on 24th July, 2008. Out of seven, five members remained present for the special meeting held on 24th July, 2008, and no confidence motion was ultimately carried by 2/3rd majority against the Petitioner. The Petitioner disputed the validity and legality of the special meeting by filing application before the Collector, Pune, however, after hearing the respective parties, the Collector, Pune, rejected the Petitioner’s application. The Petitioner thereafter preferred an Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, the same was also dismissed, and therefore, the present Petition. 3. The only point the Petitioner urged to challenged the validity and legality of the special meeting that the notice of the said meeting was not served on him in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rule, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the said Rules) and therefore, no confidence motion passed in the said meeting, is required to quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Rayrikar, A.G.P. and Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respective Respondents, on the contrary submits that the Petitioner had given leave application for the period between 21st July, 2008 to 14th August, 2008. They further submitted that the Petitioner is not residing 3 at village Osade and he staying at Vilalge Velha, Taluka Velha, District Pune, alongwith his family members. In view of the leave application, the notice of no confidence motion was affixed on the outer portion of the residential house of the Petitioner at Osade. 6. Mr. Salunkhe in reply, submit that service of notice by affixing on the outer portion of his house at Osade, cannot be termed as a good service, in view of the provisions of the said Rules and the ratio of the Judgment in Bhika Narayan Gangurde & Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors, reported in 2002(1) Bom. C.R. 186 (Aurangabad Bench). 7. I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Salunkhe, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It was specific case of the Respondents that Petitioner is staying at village Velha and not at village Osade of which he was Sarpanch. Admittedly, the Petitioner was on leave between the period from 21st July, 2008 to 14th August, 2008. In the circumstances, it was for the Petitioner to show that the other members of the family was there in the house at village Osade. In the absence of such evidence, I find the service of notice by affixing on the outer portion of the Petitioner’s house at Osade, is proper. In the above facts and circumstances, the ratio of the Judgment in the case of Bhika 4 Narayan Gangurde V/s. State of Maharashtra (Supra), is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The Petitioner has lost confidence of 2/3rd majority and no- confidence motion. In democratic set up, will of the majority will have to be respected. In that view of the fact, I am not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings arrived at by both the Authorities. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (R. V. MORE, J.)