1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3796 OF 2009 Indrajit s/o. Jalbaji Panchal and others. .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents --- Mr. P.B. Rakhunde, Advocate for the petitioner, CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1. By way of present the petitioners challenge the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the learned Additional Commissioner, Nasik, vide order dated 6th April, 2009 thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 10th February, 2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Jalna, vide which the dispute filed by the petitioners challenging the No Confidence motion, passed in the meeting dated 1st October, 2008, came to be rejected. 2. Shri Rakhunde, learned counsel for the petitioners 2 submits that the Tahsildar had convened the meeting in Mahatma Phule Samaj Mandir instead of convening the meeting in the Gram Panchayat office. He further submits that the since the voting was by show of hands, the members could not vote according to their free will and as such, the no confidence motion is vitiated. 3. Perusal of the record reveals that in a Gram Panchayat consisting of 17 members, 15 have submitted a proposal for No Confidence Motion on 26th September 2008. Accordingly, a meeting was convened on 1st October, 2008. In the said meeting 17 members including the petitioners were present. The No confidence motion was passed by a majority of 15 against 2. 4. In so far as the contention of the petition regarding meeting having been held in Mahatma Phule Samaj Mandir is concerned, the authorities on the basis of the record found that the meeting, in fact, was held in the office of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners were also present in the meeting. As such, no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the petitioners. In any event, the petitioners have lost confidence of 15 members in a Gram Panchayat of 17 members. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, rejected. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/