-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9491 OF 2010 Sudhir V. Rasal. ..Petitioner. Versus The Tahasildar, Satara & Ors. ..Respondents. with WRIT PETITION NO. 9495 OF 2010 Vijay D. Gade. ..Petitioner. Versus The Tahasildar, Satara & Ors. ..Respondents. Appearance in both the petitions : Mr. V. S. Talkute for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for R-1 & 2. Mr. Chavn for R-4 to 7. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 14, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Both the petitions arise out of the proceedings of No- Confidence Motion against the respective petitioners. In Writ Petition No. 9491 of 2011, the petitioner is Upa-Sarpanch of village Borkhal, Taluka & District Satara, while In Writ Petition No. 9495, the petitioner is Sarpanch of the said village. The village srp -: 2 :- panchayat of the said village consists of 9 members. Out of 9 members, 4 members gave requisition to the Tehsildar– Respondent no.1 herein on 31/5/2010 requesting him to call for a special meeting to discuss the No-Confidence Motion. On the very day, respondent no.1 issued notice convening the special meeting of village panchayat on 5/6/2010. This meeting was attended by 9 members. The motions of No-Confidence against the petitioners were discussed and they were carried by majority of 6 : 3, i.e., by 2/3rd majority. 3. The petitioners challenged the validity of special meeting under section 35(3-B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 [for short “the said Act.”] before the Collector, Satara. The disputes were dismissed and therefore the petitioners filed appeals before the Commissioner under section 35(3-C). The appeals were also dismissed by the orders impugned in the present writ petitions. 4. Mr. Talkute, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that service of notice on petitioners was not proper; there was no discussion in the meeting in respect of the subject on which the No-Confidence Motion was sought; the petitioners were not given opportunity to speak in the said meeting. He further submitted that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing before the lower authority, i.e., before the Collector. -: 3 :- 5. Mr. Chavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and Mr. Patne, learned AGP supported the impugned orders. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I find no merit in the writ petitions. There is no dispute that the petitioners have participated in the special meeting, which was held to discuss the No-Confidence Motion against them. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Talkute that service of the notice was not proper. So far as the 2nd contention of Mr. Talukte that the grounds on which the No- Confidence Motion was moved is not discussed is concerned, the concurrent finding is recorded by both the authorities below that there was discussion about the grounds on which No-Confidence Motion was moved and the petitioners were given opportunity to speak. . Insofar as the third ground about the opportunity of hearing before the lower appellate authority, i.e., Additional Commissioner is concerned, I find no merit in the same, as the petitioner was represented by a lawyer before the appellate authority. The said lawyer sought adjournment, which was refused and thereafter the matter was heard on merits. 7. Be that as it may, Mr. Chavan, learned counsel pointed out and Mr. Talukte could not dispute the fact that the fresh elections -: 4 :- for the post of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch are already held on 4/12/2010. In democracy, majority decision is required to be respected. 8. Taking overall circumstances into consideration, I am of the opinion that these are not cases in which the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is required to be exercised. The petitions are devoid of any merit and same are therefore dismissed. 9. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 10. At this stage, Mr. Talkute, learned counsel for the petitioners requests for continuation of stay for a period of one week. Since elections are already held, I am not inclined to grant any extension of stay granted earlier. Request is rejected. (RANJIT MORE, J.)