B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri T.R. Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. I and 2, Shri R.N. Ghuge, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 12, Shri Sonone, learned Counsel for respondent no. 13. Looking to the nature of controversy we have heard matter by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith.

2. By inviting attention to the proceedings of no confidence meeting conducted on 06.08.2013 Shri Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners points out that the motion of no confidence was not moved therein as mandated by the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, particularly Rule 17 thereof. He submits that thus the motion of no confidence was not moved on 06.08.2013, and hence, the second such attempt in pursuance of notice dated 07.12.2013 issued by the respondent no.2 Tahsildar convening meeting on 13.12.2013 is, without jurisdiction and bad. He relies upon the express language of Section 35(3A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 for said purpose. In order to show how the motion is required to be moved and the ensuing consequences, if those mandatory compliance are not made, h