Sau. Lata Vitthal Lande v. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati And Others

2024:BHC-NAG:1563 32.wp.8228.23.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.8228 OF 2023 Sau. Lata Vitthal Lande .Vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri Ram Karode, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri B.M. Lonare, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. Shri Rahul Tajne, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 11. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.

DATED : 07/02/2024 1.

This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the Additional Collector upholding the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dighi Tah. Nandura, District Buldhana.

2.

The only ground argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, no discussion was held on the motion and without giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend herself effectively, the no confidence motion was passed.

3.

The record shows that, out of nine members, seven members have voted in favour of motion, one was absent and one i.e. the petitioner voted against the motion. C.L. Dhakate

32.wp.8228.23.odt 4.

After going through the minutes of meeting, specifically states that, after moving the motion, it was put for discussion and the members who were in favour of the motion they explained their side and thereafter, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend her side. 5.

Hence, I do not find any substance in the learned counsel for the petitioner that, no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend her case or there is no discussion held before passing the motion against the petitioner. The total votes cast in favour of the motion speaks for itself that the majority is against the petitioner.

6.

In that view of the matter, as the petitioner has lost the confidence and since the procedure was followed in accordance with law, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE C.L. Dhakate