JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. As in both these writ petitions identical questions of law are involved the petitions are decided by this common judgment. 3. Rule. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing. 4. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.2574 of 2008 challenges the judgment and order dated 14-3-2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad in Appeal No.2007/DB/Desk-2/ZPVP/Appeal-CR-143 while the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2743 of 2008 challenges the judgment and order dated 14-3-2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad in Appeal No. 2007/DB/Desk-2/ ZPVP/ Appeal-CR-144. 5. The petitioners contend that they issued two separate notices dated 18-10-2007 for carrying no confidence motion against respondents Nos.4 and 5 – the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch respectively of Village Gram Panchayat Sawargaon, Taluka Manwat, District Parbhani. In a special meeting held on 23-10-2007 the motion of no confidence was passed against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch by two-thirds majority. Out of seven members of the Gram Panchayat five members attended the special meeting. 6. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 challenged the said motion of no confidence by separate appeals under Section 35-C of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before the Additional Collector Parbhani. By orders dated 5-12-2007 the Additional Collector Parbhani dismissed these appeals. Being aggrieved by the judgments and orders of the Additional Collector Parbhani respondents Nos.4 and 5 preferred two separate appeals before the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad. Both the appeals were allowed by the Divisional Commissioner and the no confidence motion which was passed against respondents Nos.4 and 5 was set aside as illegal and invalid. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Sarpanch and the Upa-Sarpanch lost the confidence and by two-thirds majority the no confidence motion was passed. The notice of no confidence motion was forwarded to the Tahsildar in accordance with law. The Commissioner erred in declaring the no confidence motion as illegal on the ground of non compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1975"). Reliance is placed on the reported judgment – Prabhawati Vijaykumar Khivsara v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 274 . 8. Reliance is placed on the reported judgment – Prabhawati Vijaykumar Khivsara v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 274 . 8. The learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.4 and 5 has placed reliance on the reported judgments - B.K. Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-op. Bank. Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 192 and Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, 2008 ALL SCR 134 in support of the contention that the provisions of law must receive such construction as would advance the purpose and intendment underlying the provisions. The Rules, 1975 have statutory force. Therefore, its violation would entail adverse consequences. As two separate notices were not given, the no confidence motion itself was vitiated, according to the counsel. 9. The Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeals on the ground of non compliance of Rule 2 of the Rules, 1975. Rule 2 reads as under :- "2.(1) The members of a panchayat who desire to move a motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch shall give notice thereof in the form appended hereto to the Tahsildar of the taluka in which such panchayat is functioning. Where the members desire to move the motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch as well as the Upa-Sarpanch, they shall give two separate notices." (2) . . . (3) . . ." The Form of notice of motion of no confidence is prescribed under the Rules, 1975 which reads thus:- Place .............. Date .............. To The Tahsildar, .............. Sir, We, the undersigned members of the village panchayat of ............ give you notice that we propose to move a motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch Upa-Sarpanch ........... in the meeting of the panchayat for the following reasons :-- ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ We declare that the facts stated above are true to the best of our information and knowledge. Name of member Signature 1................. 1 ................. 2................. 2 ................. 3................. 3 ................. 4................. 4 ................. 5................. 5 ................." 10. It is true that rule 2 provides that when members desire to move no confidence motion against the Sarpanch as well as Upa-Sarpanch they shall give two separate notices. 11. In the present matter the petitioners and other members had given two notices on 18-10-2007 addressed to the Tahsildar. The first notice was received by the Tahsildar on 18-10-2007 and another notice was received on 19-10-2007. 11. In the present matter the petitioners and other members had given two notices on 18-10-2007 addressed to the Tahsildar. The first notice was received by the Tahsildar on 18-10-2007 and another notice was received on 19-10-2007. Two separate endorsements were made by the Tahsildar on these two different notices of no confidence motion. The meeting was called by the Tahsildar to discuss these motions on 23-10-2007 and, according to the Divisional Commissioner, out of seven members five members of the panchayat attended the special meeting held on 23-10-2007 and participated in the deliberation. The motion of no confidence was passed by two-thirds majority. Certainly the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch lost confidence of the majority of the members which is essential in a democratic set up. The issue raised by the Sarpanch and the Upa-Sarpanch is that the procedure as laid down under the Rules, 1975 was not followed, therefore, the no confidence motion would become ineffective and inoperative. The Rules 1975 prescribe that in case no confidence motion is to be tabled two separate notices have to be given. The petitioners and other members had forwarded identical texts of motion of no confidence twice which they were to institute against the Sarpanch and the Upa-Sarpanch. The communication of motion of no confidence bears the same date i.e. 18-10-2007 but they were received by the authority on different dates. Merely having reference to Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch in one and the same notice should not provide a ground to get the no confidence motion set aside which was passed with sufficient majority. The will of majority in the democratic set-up is required to be given its due weightage. Obviously, there is no doubt that the Sarpanch and the Upa-Sarpanch had lost majority. I place reliance on the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Nimba Rajaram Mali vs.Collector, Jalgaon, 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 204 in para 13 : "13. In a democratic society what is important is he will of the majority and the elected representatives must honour the will of the majority. It is immaterial to analyse and debate on the reasons behind the will of he majority or the specific reasons for such will being expressed. The will of the majority is of paramount importance and it must be respected by all elected representatives responsible for the governance of such democratic institutions. It is immaterial to analyse and debate on the reasons behind the will of he majority or the specific reasons for such will being expressed. The will of the majority is of paramount importance and it must be respected by all elected representatives responsible for the governance of such democratic institutions. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Babubhai (supra), resolution of No Confidence Motion is different from Censure Motion and such a resolution cannot be faulted on the ground that there were no reasons or reasons were vague and lacked detailed specifications. Once the resolution of No Confidence Motion is passed by a clear majority and in keeping with the requirements of the concerned statutory provisions, the person against whom such a resolution is passed, must honour the will of the majority and make way for the new election of his successor. Unless it is shown that while passing such a resolution of No Confidence Motion, there was flagrant violation of any of mandatory procedure laid down, such a resolution cannot be inferred with by the Court or statutory authorities adjudicating such disputes. ......" 12. I do not find that there was flagrant violation of mandatory procedure for declaring the no confidence motion to be bad in law. The Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch who lost majority ought to have respected the mandate. I do not find any prejudice caused to the respondents Nos.4 and 5 in the facts of this case. The view adopted by the Divisional Commissioner based on rule 2 of the Rules, 1975, in the facts of this case, is not sustainable. 13. The writ petitions therefore require to be allowed. 14. The impugned judgments and orders dated 14-3-2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad in Appeal No.2007/DB/Desk-2/ZPVP/Appeal-CR-143 and Appeal No.2007/DB/Desk-2/ZPVP/Appeal-CR-144 are quashed and set aside. 15. It is declared that the no confidence motions were validly passed in the meeting held on 23-10-2007 against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch – respondents Nos.4 and 5 respectively. 16. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.