IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.875 OF 2011 HIRALAL GAWARLE ..VS.. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI & ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 21, 2011. The only submission on which the no-confidence motion and the impugned orders are challenged by the petitioner, is that there was no effective discussion on the allegations made against the petitioner by the members of the Gram Panchayat and hence the petitioner was not in a position to refute or explain the charges levelled against him. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is not well founded as the members of the Gram Panchayat have a right to discuss in the meeting, but in case they did not wish to discuss, they cannot be compelled to do so, by the Tahsildar/ Presiding Officer. The petitioner could have refuted the charges levelled against him on his own, if there was no discussion in the meeting by the members of the gram Panchayat. The challenge raised to the impugned order on the aforesaid ground is ill founded and the orders call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Moreover, it is pointed out by the respondents by the affidavit in reply that the petitioner was very much present in the meeting and had an opportunity refute the allegations levelled against him, in the meeting. Hence for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP