1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4076 OF 2009 Anil s/o Kamlakar Ambhore. PETITIONER. V E R S U S The Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad and ors. RESPONDENTS Shri S. J. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Kaldate, AGP for the Resp- State. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 2nd JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner takes an exception to the concurrent findings of fact, arrived at by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad vide order dated 05.06.2009 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, Jalna dated 24.03.2009 thereby dismissing the dispute challenging the no confidence motion held in the Special meeting dated 03.02.2009. 2. Shri Salunke, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though one member namely Kusumbai Kisanrao Ambhore was held to be disqualified by the Commissioner, she has participated in the meeting and as such entire proceedings are vitiated. 2 3. The grampanchayat consists of 11 members. Out of the said 11 members 9 members have supported the no confidence motion. In so far as the vote casted by Smt. Kusumbai is concerned, the authorities have found that the vacancy in so far as disqualification is concerned was not notified and as such the contention of the petitioner that she is not entitled for voting was without substance. Even assuming that contention of the petitioner in this respect is right, it would be seen that even after keeping vote of Smt. Kusumbai aside, 8 members of the gram panchayat had supported in favour of the resolution. It would thus be clear that motion would be passed by majority of more than 2/3rd , members even if the vote of the Kusumbai is kept aside. 4. Apex Court in the case of K. Narasimhiah V/s H.C. Singri Gowda and ors. Reported in AIR 1966 S.C. Page 330 has held that unless a prejudice could be said to have been caused on account of procedural requirement, the Court should not interfere in the motion of no confidence.” 5. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence rejected. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE aaa/office/wp4076.09 ***