Heard Mr M.V. Ghatge, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Mr K.M. Suryawanshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 & 3; Mr B.G. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for respondent no.2; Mr V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel with Mr P.B. Rakhunde for respondent nos. 4 to 12 and Mr M.R. Sonawane, learned Counsel for respondents no.13 to 15, at length. Rule. The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. At the request and by consent of learned Counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 17 th June, 2013, passed by the Additional Collector, Nanded, in dispute styled as an appeal preferred by him under section 35 (3-B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short Act). By that order, the Additional Collector dismissed the dispute referred by the petitioner, challenging the proceedings and the resolution passed in the special meeting dated 25th March, 2013, of Grampanchayat, Nivgha (Bazar), Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded (for short "Panchayat"). The special meeting was presided over by Tahsildar, Hadgaon, wherein the motion of no confidence against the petitioner as a Sarpanch of Panchayat was carried and accordingly resolution was passed by the requisite majority under section 35 of the Act read with the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 (for short "No Confidence Rules"). The relevant and material facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present petition, briefly stated, are as under:-

3. The Panchayat consists of 13 members. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch on 28th November, 2010. The proceedings under section 7 of the Act were initiated by respondent no.7 Sadashiv Paikwar and four other members against the petitioner, alleging that he had not conducted statutory meetings. By judgment and order dated 11th February, 2013, the Additional Collector, Nanded, dismissed that complaint. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.7 Paikwar is a very influential member of the Panchayat. He pressurized the other members of the Panchayat and moved the requisition before Tahsildar for discussing no confidence motion against the petitioner on 19th March, 2013. The Tahsildar, Hadgaon, convened a special meeting on 25th March, 2013.

4. On 25th March, 2013, a special meeting was held at the Panchayat office and the same was presided over by the Tahsildar, Hadgaon. In that meeting, the petitioner specifically requested for taking votes by secret ballot and the said request was rejected on the ground that there is no such provision in the Act. The petitioner has further come with the case that apart from the petitioner, 9 members out of 13 also requested for taking votes by secret ballot. The case of the petitioner is that out of 13 members, 10 members made a request for secret ballot as the members were pressurized by respondent no.7. The Presiding Officer, however, ignored the same and the proceeding was continued. In short, without hearing the petitioner and without giving members an opportunity to vote by secret ballot, the proceedings was concluded. There was no proposer and seconder of the motion of no confidence and it was declared that the motion of no confidence was carried against the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner referred dispute, before the Collector, Nanded. Respondents no.3 to 11 resisted the dispute by filing their reply. Respondents no.12 to 14 also filed their reply and supported the claim of the petitioner. By the impugned order, the Additional Collector, dismissed the dispute. Against this order, the petitioner has instituted this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. In support of this petition, Mr Ghatge submitted that the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings)