S.C. Gupte, J.

1 In this appeal, the Appellant has challenged an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in a writ petition refusing to grant interim relief to the Appellant, who was a petitioner in the writ petition.

2 In an election of the village panchayat held in the year 2010, the Appellant was elected as the Sarpanch for the village Theur in Taluka Haveli, District Pune, for a period of 5 years. The Gram Panchayat has 17 members. On 5 October 2011, Respondent No.7 along with 6 others, all of whom were members of the panchayat, moved a no confidence motion against the Appellant by giving notice under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (“the Act”). Respondent No.14 – Tahsildar disposed of the notice on the ground that the notice was not tendered in the prescribed form. Thereafter, on 7 March 2012, Respondents Nos.1 to 13 submitted another notice to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar convened a special meeting of the Panchayat on 12 March 2012 for discussing the no confidence motion. The meeting was attended by all 17 members of the Panchayat. 13 members voted in favour of the no confidence motion by raising their hands, and the motion was declared as passed by the Tahsildar. The Appellant challenged the decision by preferring a Dispute Application under Section 35 (3-B) of the Act before Respondent No.16 – Additional Collector, Pune. The Dispute Application was dismissed by Respondent No.16. The Appellant, thereupon, preferred an appeal before Respondent No.17 – Divisional Commissioner, Pune. The Appeal was rejected. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed the writ petition, in which the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, though Rule was issued, the Appellant's application for interim relief for stay of the orders below on the no confidence motion was rejected by the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred this appeal.

3 We have heard Mr. Gavnekar, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Patwardhan, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Vagyani, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the State.

4 The controversy in the matter may be briefly stated as follows. The resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat had the requisite majority. The basis of challenge to the resolution was, however, two fold: (1) contravention of Section 35 (3-A) of the Act, and (2) non-compliance with Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 (“the Meeting Rules”). Section 35 (3-A) of the Act provides that if a no confidence motion (of which notice is given to the Tahsildar) is not moved or is not carried by a majority of not less than three fourth of the total number of members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchayat, no such fresh motion shall be moved within a period of one year from the date of such special meeting. It is the case of the Appellant that the first notice of no confidence motion was given to the Tahsildar on 7 March 2012. That motion was not moved or carried by the requisite majority and therefore, it was not open to anyone to move a second no confidence motion within one year. Secondly, it is claimed that Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules requires the member who has given notice of a motion to commence his speech by a formal motion, which is required to be Seconded before the same is put to vote. It is claimed that in the meeting of the Panchayat no one moved or seconded the no confidence motion and thus, there is a clear breach of Rule 17 and the motion cannot be said to have been validity carried.

5 The learned Single Judge rejected the first contention of the Appellant by holding that the bar under Section 35 (3-A) will be attracted only when a special meeting is actually held in pursuance of the notice and in that meeting the no confidence motion is either not moved or not carried, and that in the present case the Tahsildar had not convened the special meeti