1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2837 OF 2010 Nivrutti s/o. Ramdas Bhad, R/o. Hartale, Tq. Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Petitioner. Versus Addl. Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik & others ....Respondents. Shri. G.V. Wani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri. A.D. Pawar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 7 to 14. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 5th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1. The motion of no confidence is passed against the petitioner and the decision taken by the Panchayat, adopting motion, was subjected to challenge in appeal tendered to the Collector, Jalgaon. The appeal was heard and disposed of by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon in view of the order dated 15.12.2009. Further appeal is presented by the petitioner to the Additional Commissioner, Nashik. However, the appellate authority 2 has also confirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon in view of judgment and order dated 10th of March 2010. 2. It is to be noted that the motion of no confidence has been passed against the petitioner by more than 2/3rd majority; 8 voting in favour of the motion, whereas only 1 member cast his vote against the motion. It is stated that the strength of the membership of the Village Panchayat is 11, out of which 9 members attended the meeting and 2 remained absent. The fact remains that majority of the members of Village Panchayat do not repose faith in the petitioner. 3. The petitioner contends that the charges levelled against him are vague and those are not the functions tobe performed by the Sarpanch. In respect of the charge of supply of drinking water to the villagers, the objection noted in the charge No. 2, is infact, function required to be performed by the administrative staff of the Village Panchayat. So also the charge in respect of the maintenance of accounts is also not sustainable as said function is required to be performed by the Village Development Officer. It is further contended that provisions of Rule 2 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat (No Confidence Motion) Rules were not observed. Requisite number of copies were not tendered along with requisition at the office of Tahsildar. It is also pointed out that copy of the requisition notice was not affixed and exhibited on the notice board of Village Panchayat. 3 4. The objections raised by the petitioner as regards non compliance of provisions of Rule 2 (2) do not vitiate the motion and non observance of this procedural aspects is held to be directory in nature. Both the Courts below have taken a reasonable view of the matter. The petitioner do not enjoy the support of majority and as such, has to leave the office, gracefully. No interference is called for in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition, therefore, stands rejected. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/wp2837.10