1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 2204 of 2007 Madhukar K. Atram..vs.. The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Dn. And others. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Coram: R. V. MORE, J Dated : 31st January 2008 Heard Mr. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Taiwade, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None appears for other respondents, though served. The petitioner, who is Sarpanch, by filing this petition challenges the proceedings of the Special Meeting, in which No Confidence Motion was passed by 2/3rd majority against him. The required number of members of the Gram Panchayat gave requisition on 21/12/2006 and on the same day, the Tahsildar convened the Special Meeting to discuss the No Confidence Motion on 27/12/2006. In this Special Meeting, No Confidence Motion was passed by 2/3rd majority 2 against the petitioner. The petitioner's reference under Section 35 (3) (b) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, for short), was rejected by the Collector on the ground that the same is not filed within the period of limitation. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner under Section 35 (3)( c ) of the Act, the same is also rejected. Hence, the present petition. The main contentions of the petitioner's that the Special Meeting is not called within the period of 7 days from the date of receipt of requisition and secondly, he was not served with the notice of the Special Meeting, which was convened on 27/12/2006, to discuss No Confidence Motion. Sofaras the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the requisition was given on 21/12/2006 and on the same day, the Tahsildar issued notice calling for Special Meeting to discuss No Confidence Motion and the Special Meeting was convened by this notice on 27/12/2006. In view of these facts, the petitioner's first contention does not have any 3 merit. As regards second contention of the petitioner's that the notice was not served, does not have any substance, inasmuch as he has himself contended that the notice was served on his family members. In democracy the Will of majority is to be respected. The No Confidence Motion was passed by 2/3rd majority and the same has been passed since long back i.e. in the month of January, 2007. In view of these facts and circumstances, I do not want to interfere with the impugned order in my jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Judge. Jsa.