1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The challenge in this writ petition is raised by the petitioner who was an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Talegaon Dashasar, to his removal from the said elected position in pursuance of a no confidence motion passed against him on 05.12.2016 by the members of the Gram Panchayat, in a meeting presided over by the Tahsildar and to the order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Amravati, whereby the dispute filed by the petitioner against passing of such no confidence motion, was dismissed. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and various Rules framed thereunder, are twofold. Firstly, that the petitioner was never granted an opportunity to address the members of the Gram Panchayat in the meeting held on 05.12.2016 in order to give his response to the charges levelled against him in the no confidence motion, thereby denying him a valuable opportunity in a democratic set up and secondly, that the voting on the said no confidence motion was held by show of hands and not by way of secret ballot, although 5 members of the Gram Panchayat had specifically demanded that voting be held by secret ballot.

3. The facts of the present case are in a narrow conspectus. The petitioner and other members of Gram Panchayat Talegaon Dashasar, tahsil Dhamangaon Railway, district Amravati, were elected in an election held in May 2015 and thereafter the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. On 01.12.2016, 13 members of the Gram Panchayat gave a notice for convening a special meeting for passing no confidence motion against the petitioner raising four charges against the petitioner. These pertained to the petitioner failing to take the members of the Gram Panchayat in confidence during performing work of the Gram Panchayat, failure on his part to immediately implement the works suggested by the members, failure on his part to utilise the funds received from the State for a period of about 10 to 11 months and causing harassment to residents and students by avoiding to give entries/documents to them for no particular reason. The respondent no.1-Tahsildar convened meeting on the said notice under Section 35(2) of the said Act on 05.12.2016 for considering the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. 17 members of the Gram Panchayat attended the said meeting, which was presided over by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 recorded minutes of the meeting dated 05.12.2016 recording the fact that the petitioner and 4 other members submitted an application for holding voting by secret ballot, while 11 members submitted an application for taking the voting by show of hands. The application filed by the petitioner and 4 others was rejected while the application of the said 11 members was allowed and the voting was directed to be conducted by show of hands. The minutes of the meeting then recorded that there was discussion on the motion of no confidence and that 12 members voted in favour of the no confidence motion against the petitioner while 5 members voted against the same. On this basis, since 12 members voted in favour of the motion constituting more than 2/3rd majority of the total number of members entitled to sit and vote in meeting of the Gram Panchayat, the no confidence motion was held to have been passed against the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the said no confidence motion passed against him, the petitioner filed a dispute before the respondent no.19 Additional Collector, Amravati under Section 35 (3-B) of the said Act, raising inter alia, aforesaid two contentions to claim that the no confidence motion was unsustainable and that it deserved to be quashed and set aside. In this dispute filed before the respondent No.19, the petitioner specifically stated that he was not given an