1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2945 OF 2010 Prithesh Shankar Raul ..Petitioner. -versus Tahsildar,Vengurla & ors .. Respondents. Mr. D.A. Patil, for the petitioner. Mr S.N. Bhonsale, AGP for respondent Nos l & 2. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J DATED: 24th June, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Bhosale, learned AGP for the respondent Nos l & 2. 2. On 28.12.2008, the petitioner came to be elected as Upsarpanch of Village Panchayat, Redi. The Village Panchayat consists of 13 members. 8 members of the Village Panchayat on 18th August, 2009, issued notice under section 35(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, l958 (for short called as “the Act”), requiring Tahsildar to call for the Special meeting to discuss no confidence motion against the petitioner. 3. The Tahsildar on 24.8.2009, convened the Special meeting of members of village Panchayat of Redi. The meeting wp2945.sxw vks 2 was attended by 9 members and no confidence motion was passed unanimously. 4. The petitioner disputed the validity of the said meeting and no confidence resolution passed therein, by filing an application before the Collector u/s 35(B) of the Act. The dispute application was rejected and thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal u/s 35(C) of the Act before the Commissioner. The appeal has also been dismissed by the impugned order, which is impugned in the present petition. 5. The Petitioner challenging the validity of the Special meeting and no confidence resolution on the ground that he was not allowed to participate in the said meeting. This objection was overruled by the Collector as well as Commissioner on the ground that the petitioner himself deliberately remained absent inspite of notice of no confidence. The petitioner could not point out any material to assail the said finding. 6. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the though no confidence motion was passed on 24.8.2009, subsequently in a meeting dated 31.8.2009, Village Panchaya, decided to allow the petitioner to function as Deputy Sarpanch. I do not see any merits in the submission, firstly this point was not agitated before the authorities below. For the first time this point is argued in a writ petition filed under wp2945.sxw vks 3 Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of the India. In any case, once no confidence motion is passed, the Village Panchayat cannot thereafter allow the petitioner to function as Deputy Sarpanch. 7. Mr.Patil, lastly submitted that the reason given in the notice of no confidence motion is not tenable. However, in a democratic set up, the validity of the reasons cannot be gone into. Taking overall facts and circumstances into consideration, I do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (R.V. MORE, J.) wp2945.sxw vks