FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office notes, office Memoranda of coram, appearance, court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WRIT PETITION NO.1174/2010 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Mali for the petitioners, Advocate Mr. Mukhedkar for respondent No.5 and learned A.G.P. 2. Petitioners are Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch respectively. No trust motion was brought against them. Special meeting was conveyed by the Tahsildar. Such meeting was scheduled on 19.09.2009. No trust motion has been passed by 2/3rd majority. Said Resolution or order of the Tahsildar was subject matter of dispute before the learned Additional Collector, Osmanabad. Present petitioners were appellant before the learned Additional District Collector, Osmanabad. Matter was heard and dispute was rejected on 19.11.2009. Copy of the judgment is on record (page 27) annexure 'A'. This order is passed by Additional District Collector, Osmanabad, no confidence motion is confirmed. 3. This order was further carried in appeal before learned Divisional Commissioner, Osmanabad, who after hearing parties, dismissed the appeal by order dated 21.01.2010. This order is impugned in this writ petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioners raised two submissions. Firstly according to him, Presiding Officer of Special Meeting Tahasildar (lady Officer), after commencement of the meeting took xerox copy of the proceeding book of another village panchayat, re-written copy of the present proceeding book. That time present petitioners requested for seven time to the lady officer concerned to follow the procedure, however she refused. When at the eighth time request is made, she threatened to call the police and that is how debate by the petitioners was not permitted by the Tahsildar concerned. 5. To substantiate this, learned counsel for the petitioner FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office notes, office Memoranda of coram, appearance, court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ invited my attention to annexure 'C' page 22. On pointed query, counsel for the petitioners replied that this ground was raised in a dispute application filed under section 35 (3B) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. However, certified copy of the order of said dispute application to substantiate the submission of learned counsel, is not placed on record. This factual aspect is admitted by the learned counsel after verifying the compilation. Another grievance raised is similar that such contention was raised before the Divisional Commissioner. He also on pointed query replies that copy of the appeal memo, which was filed before learned Divisional Commissioner is on record. I have perused the order passed by learned Additional District Collector and Divisional Commissioner. 6. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that there is no substance in this appeal. My attention is also invited by the learned counsel for the petitioners to order passed by Additional Collector and Divisional Commissioner. Some of the members according to counsel for the petitioners were not eligible to participate in the meeting and had acquired disqualification. Learned Divisional Commissioner has recorded finding that competent authority under the Act has not disqualified or at least no documents showing their disqualification produced on record. 7. In view of the order passed and submissions made, in my view, there is no substance in the writ petition. Elections are scheduled day after tomorrow. Petitioners have lost faith and confidence of the members. Writ petition stands dismissed inlimine. No costs. ( S. B. DESHMUKH, J. ) Dt :- 16.02.2010 aaa/1174.10 ...