The main legal point established is that a no-confidence motion is carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members entitled to sit and vote at the meeting, as per Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.

JUDGMENT

R.G. Ketkar, J. - Heard Mr. R.V. Govilkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.H. Kankal, learned AGP for respondent No.1-State, Mr. A.S. Pandire, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 & 7, Mr. Sachin Gite, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and Ms. Kavita Shinde, learned counsel for respondents No.8 and 9, at length.

2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.10.2018 passed by the Additional Collector, Nashik in Grampanchayat Dispute Application No.88/2018. By that order, the Additional Collector dismissed the Dispute Application filed by the petitioner challenging the resolution of ''no-confidence'' passed against him in the meeting convened on 14.9.2018.

3. The petitioner was elected as Surpanch of Grampanchayat Khopadi (Bk), Taluka Sinnar, - District - Nashik (for short, ''Grampanchayat''). The total members of the Grampanchayat are nine. Respondents No.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 served notice of ''noconfidence'' to Tahsildar, Sinnar on 7.9.2018. On the same day, the Tahsildar, Sinnar issued notice convening Special Meeting on 14.9.2018 at 11:00 a.m. in the office of the Grampanchayat. On 14.9.2018, Special Meeting as scheduled was held. It was attended by eight members out of nine members. One member did not remain present in that meeting. Respondent No.7 also attended that meeting. In the meeting, so convened, six members voted in favour of the motion of ''no-confidence'' and two members opposed the ''no-confidence'' motion. The Presiding Officer declared that the motion is carried in terms of Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (for short, ''Act'') by a majority of 2/3rd members and accordingly declared that motion is carried out against the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by that decision, the petitioner instituted dispute before the Collector. By the impugned order, the Additional Collector has dismissed the dispute. It is against this order, the petitioner has instituted the present petition.

5. In support of this Petition, Mr. Govilkar strenuously contended that respondent No.7 did not submit her caste validity certificate within the prescribed period of six months and, therefore, she had incurred disqualification. One member remained absent and if her vote is excluded, only six members out of nine members have voted in favour of the motion of ''no-confidence''. He relied upon Rules 3, 7, 9 and 11 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 (for short, "Meetings Rules") as also Rule 2(2-B) of the of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 (for short, ''no-confidence Motion Rules''). He submitted that if respondent No.7 is excluded from consideration, then in that event only five members out of nine members have voted in favour of the motion of ''no-confidence''. In view of Section 35(3) of the Act, it cannot be said that the motion is carried out by 2/3rd of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at the meeting for considering the ''no-confidence'' motion. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. Mr. Gite submitted that in the first place, at the time of convening the meeting, no order disqualifying respondent No.7 was passed. In other words, she was entitled to sit and vote in the meeting convened on 14.9.2018. Secondly, he submitted that even if it is considered that she is not entitled to sit and vote on account of incurring disqualification, in that event the total members of the Grampanchayat are eight. Out of eight members, one member did not remain present leaving behind seven members. Out of seven members, five members have voted in favour of the motion of ''no-confidence'' (excluding respondent No.7), which constitutes a majority of not less than 2/3rd of the total number of the