:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2873 OF 2008 Ananda Dinkar Patil ..Petitioner Vs. 1. Gramsevak, G.P. Punal and ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.V. Sadavarte for petitioner. Ms. V.S. Mhaispurkar, AGP for respondent nos.1,2 and 11. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 24, 2008. Date : April 24, 2008. Date : April 24, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Sadavarte the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has been unseated from the post of Sarpanch consequent to the no confidence motion passed against him. He approached the Collector, Kolhapur in Dispute Application No. 66 of 2007 filed under Section 35(3)(b) of the Mumbai Village Panchayat Act, 1958 and the said application has been dismissed by the Collector as per his judgment and order dated 23/11/2007. The petitioner thereafter approached the :2: Divisional Commissioner by way of an appeal which came to be registered as Appeal No. 33 of 2007 and was dismissed on 1/4/2008. Being aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. There is no doubt that in the meeting held pursuant to the notice received by the Tahsildar to discuss the no confidence motion, six members voted in its favour whereas only three opposed the same. It was the case of the petitioner that in Ward No.2 the election process itself was under challenge and prima facie was suffered from illegalities. Both the authorities below noted that the law laid down by this court in the case of Mrs. Suvarna Prakash Patil vs. Anil Hindurao Powar and ors. [2004(1) ALL MR 767] and held that so long as the issue of disqualification under Section 14(h) is not decided, the members whose disqualification is under challenge could not be disqualified from participating in the no confidence motion. It is well settled by a number of judgments of this court that the tenure of the office of Sarpanch is wholly at the pleasure and will of the :3: majority of the members of the Panchayat. He can occupy that office so long as he enjoys the confidence of the majority of the members and once the majority expresses its no confidence against him, he has to vacate the office and may, if he so desired, jump in the fray for recontesting. 3. Hence, there is no case made out to cause interference in the concurrent view taken by both the authorities below. 4. Consequently, the petition is rejected. It is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the Collector in completing on going enquiry on its own merits. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)