1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The Petition takes exception to the concurrent order passed by the Additional Collector, Kolhapur dated 14th August, 2012, thereby rejecting the dispute filed by the present Petitioner challenging the No Confidence Motion passed against him on 19th June, 2012 and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune dated 2nd January, 2013 thereby dismissing the Appeal filed by the present Petitioner.

3. The facts in brief giving rise to the Petition are as under:

The Petitioner was elected as a member of Grampanchayat – Minche, Taluka Hatkanangale, Dist. Kolhapur in the general election which was held in the year 2012. The Petitioner had contested and elected for the seat reserved for OBC. The post of the Sarpanch was reserved for OBC and the Petitioner came to be elected on the said post. A notice was issued to the Tahsildar-Hatkanangale purportedly by nine members of village panchayat proposing to move No Confidence Motion against the Petitioner. In pursuance to the notice, meeting for considering No Confidence Motion was conveyed by the Tahsildar on 19th June, 2012. In the said meeting, No Confidence Motion came to be passed by the majority of nine members. The Petitioner made a complaint on the said date that the signature of one member Smt. Lokare was forged one and raised a grievance regarding that. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred a dispute before the Collector which was dismissed by the Additional Collector on 14th August, 2012. Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the learned Divisional Commissioner by way of an Appeal. During the pendency of the Appeal, the Petitioner also obtained an opinion regarding genuineness of the signature of said Smt Lokare from a private handwriting expert which opinion, according to the Petitioner, is in his favour. An application was made to the Divisional Commissioner for sending signature of Smt.Lokare to handwriting expert which was not decided, and therefore, the Petitioner was required to approach this Court by way Aswale3/32 of Writ Petition No.11973 of 2012. This Court in the order dated 20th December, 2012 observed that the fact that the person whose signature is in dispute was present in the No Confidence Motion and has voted against the Petitioner is not in dispute, and further observed that the said issue can be looked into even after the Commissioner decides his Appeal. Subsequently the Appeal has been dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the present Petition.

4. Shri Mankapure, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has raised following propositions in support of the Petition:

I) that while conducting the meeting in which No Confidence Motion was passed, Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “Meetings Rules”) was not followed. The learned counsel in this respect submits that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of VishwasP. Mokal v/s Group Gram Panchayat Shihu and Ors reported in 2011 (3) Bom. C. R. 495 has held that the Meeting Rules are applicable even to a meeting which considers No Confidence Motion and as such by non compliance with the said rules, the entire proceeding stands vitiated. It is submitted that Rule 17 requires that No Confidence Motion has to be moved by the proposes and seconded by the Seconder. It is submitted that since the motion is not moved by the Aswale4/32 proposer and seconded by the seconder, the entire proceeding of the meeting shall stand vitiated.

II) Signature of one of the Applicants on the notice to the Tahsildar was forged signature and as such the requisition for holding the meeting to consider No Confidence Motion did not have requisite number of members. It is submitted that since the fraud vitiates everything, the meeting which was conveyed on the basis of such fraudulent notice itself was not valid and as such resolution passed therein was not sustainable.

III) That, on account of the