Wp 3243 of 10 1 SSK/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3243 OF 2010 Shri Prakash Bhau Mane ....Petitioner Versus Grampanchayat Hingangaon & Ors. ...Respondents s Mr. I. M. Khairdi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 13TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr.Khairdi, Advocate for the Petitioner. 2. The petition pertains to no confidence motion of 2/3 majority passed against the Petitioner-Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Hingangaon. The Village Panchayat consisted of 9 persons. The Petitioner and 8 others were elected as the members of the said Panchayat on 7th October, 2007 and thereafter, the Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the said panchayat on 24th November, 2007. Seven members of the Grampanchayat gave requisition to the Tahasildar calling upon him to convey special meeting to discuss no confidence motion against the Petitioner. The Tahasildar in pursuance of this requisition, held special meeting of Village Panchayat on 9th November, 2009. The meeting was Wp 3243 of 10 2 attended by all the 9 members including the Petitioner and after following the proper procedure, no confidence motion was carried out by majority of 8 against 1. 3. The Petitioner challenged the validity of the special meeting and no confidence motion by filing a dispute application under section 35 of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, the said application was however dismissed and thereafter the Petitioner filed an appeal under section 35(3) (c) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, same was also dismissed by the order which is impugned in the present petition. 4. The special meeting to discuss the no confidence motion was held in accordance with the rules prescribed. The special meeting was attended by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was also given an opportunity of debating over no confidence motion. Both the lower authorities recorded findings that the special meeting which was called to discuss the no confidence motion and no confidence motion passed therein is legal. The Petitioner has lost confidence of 2/3 majority. In a democratic set-up, the will of majority is required to be honoured. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)