IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3621 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3621 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3621 OF 2008 Latabai Pandurang Khune ..Petitioner. V/s. Jyotiram Ganpat Bobade & Ors. ..Respondents. Mrs.Geeta Mulekar for petitioner. Mr.S.S.Shah for respondents. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 13TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 13TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 13TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Akulgaon on 23/11/2005. On 15th December, 2006 a no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. 2. Challenging the resolution of no confidence the petitioner had filed Application No.2 of 2007 under section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, which was allowed by the Additional Collector, Solapur on 12th July, 2007 and the no confidence resolution was set aside. - = : 2 : = - 3. Challenging the aforesaid order of Additional Collector, the respondent No.3 filed an appeal and the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division by the impugned order dated 21st April, 2008 allowed the appeal and confirmed the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner. Challenging the order of the Divisional Commissioner, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. The argument of the petitioner is that the vote of no confidence has been passed by seeking show of hands only in favour of the resolution without seeking show of hands against the resolution. According to the petitioner, although 6 out of 9 members voted in favour of the no confidence, it was mandatory to ascertain the votes against the resolution by show of hands. As the returning officer has failed to ascertain the votes against the resolution by show of the hands, the resolution passed against the petitioner has become invalid. In support of her above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ashok Krishnakant Mehta V/s. State of - = : 3 : = - Maharashtra reported in 2004(4) Mh.L.J. 197 and a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hukam Singh V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in A.I.R. Rajasthan 119. 5. There is no merit in the above contention, because, once the majority members and in the present case 6 out of 9 members have voted in favour of the no confidence resolution, it is obvious that 3 out of 9 members were either against the resolution or were neutral. In such a case, the decision of the returning officer that the majority members have voted in favour of the no confidence cannot be faulted. There is no provision under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 or the Rules made thereunder requiring the returning officer to take votes for and against the no confidence motion. As it is not in dispute that out of 9 members, 6 members have voted against the petitioner, the decision in holding that the no confidence motion has been passed against the petitioner cannot be faulted. 6. Reliance placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Ashok Krishnakant Mehta (supra) is misplaced, because, in that case, it was - = : 4 : = - an admitted fact that the members who were present were not allowed to address in the meeting. In the present case, there is no such allegation and, therefore, the decision of this Court in the case of Ashok K.Mehta (supra) has no application to the facts of the case. Similarly, the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hukam Singh (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, because, there is no provision in the Bombay Village Panchayat Act or the Rules made thereunder requiring the returning officer to ascertain the votes of the members who are not supporting the no confidence motion, even after it is ascertained that majority of the members are in favour of passing the no confidence motion. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner feebly contended that in the meeting, the members were not allowed to speak and, therefore, the resolution is bad. It is apparent that the said argument was not canvassed before the appellate authority and there is no grievance in the petition that the appellate authority has failed to consider that argument. Although in the original application it is stated by the petitioner that the members were not allowed to speak in the meeting, it is totally vague and bereft - = : 5 : = - of any particulars. Neither the names of those members who were not allowed to speak in the meeting has been given nor any evidence has been adduced in that behalf. In these circumstances, the argument of the petitioner that the resolution is vitiated by not allowing the members to speak in the meeting cannot be accepted. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)