1. Both these L.P.A.’s are being disposed of by this common Order as the issue involved is the same.

2. A few common facts may be set out which would be essential for the purpose of disposing the controversy as raised in these Appeals.

The appellants in both the Appeals and Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 are the elected members of Village Panchayat, Sawargaon, Tq-Manwat, Dist-Parbhani. The appellant in L.P.A. No.139 of 2008 was Upasarpanch and the appellant in L.P.A. No. 140 of 2008 was the Sarpanch. Respondent Nos.1 and 6 to 9 in both the L.P.A.’s moved a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch and Upasarpanch on 18/10/2007. The grounds raised were the same. On 23/10/2007 the Tahasildar convened a special meeting for considering the no confidence motion. On the date of the motion, five elected members were present. It appears that both the Sarpanch and Upasarpanch did not participate. The motion, therefore, was passed as required by two-third majority.

3. The appellants preferred Appeals under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) to the Collector, Parbhani. It was their contention that there ought to have been two sep