JUDGMENT:- Heard Shri. A.S. Mardikar, Advocate for petitioner, Shri. A.S. Sonare, A.G.P. for respondent nos.l & 2 Shri. P. S. Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 9. Respondent no.3, served, but absent. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. Petitioner, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking to challenge the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati dated 15.1.2008 in Appeal NO.22/BVP Act 35(3)(c)/2008-2009 of Kohala, Tahsil Darvha, District Yavatmal. In an appeal under section 35(3)( c) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, which was preferred to challenge the order passed by the Additional Collector, Yavatmal in Gram Panchayat Case No. 16/69/08-09 Mouja Kohla, Tahsil Darvha, District: Yavatmal, dated 11.11.2008. 3. Brief facts leading to this petition can be slated thus. The petitioner is member of the Gram Panchayat Kohla, Tahsil-Darvha, District- Yavatmal she was elected as Sarpanch in the year 2007. On 17.7.2008, respondents no.4 to 9 moved an Notice for "no confidence" against the petitioner. Special Meeting for considering this no-confidence motion was called on 22.7.2008. The motion was carried by 6: 0; as the petitioner was absent. Petitioner then preferred a dispute before the Additional Collector, Yavatmal, bearing No. Gram Panchayat Mamla No.73/69/2007-2008 Mouja Kohla. Tahsil-Darvha, District: Yavatmal. According to the petitioner, the resolution of no confidence dated 22.7.2008 was illegally carried. Relevant meeting was not held in Gram Panchayat Office, though as per notice it was to be held in Gram Panchayat Office. Notice of the said no confidence motion was not served on the adult member of the family of the petitioner. In fact it was served through her son who was minor. According to the petitioner at the relevant time, it was alleged that she was not granted any opportunity to defend herself, nor there were any pro-poser or seconded to the said resolution of no confidence, against petitioner. Learned Additional Collector by order dated 26.8.2008 dismissed the said dispute saying that there was no substance in the contention and application preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner then challenged that order before the Commissioner, Amravati. Learned Additional Commissioner, Amravati partly allowed the said appeal. Learned Additional Collector by order dated 26.8.2008 dismissed the said dispute saying that there was no substance in the contention and application preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner then challenged that order before the Commissioner, Amravati. Learned Additional Commissioner, Amravati partly allowed the said appeal. He found that the notice was not properly served and the meeting was not held in accordance with the rules and the resolution of no-confidence against the petitioner was; therefore, not correct. He, however, further held that it would be proper to keep the requisition given earlier by the members intact and Tahsildar was directed to conduct fresh meeting within 15 days from the date of the order i.e. 12.9.2008. 4. Writ Petition was preferred against that order by the petitioner bearing Writ Petition No.447 112008. However, the said writ petition was later on withdrawn on 15.10.2008, as the meeting was already held and the said no confidence motion was carried again. The relevant order of this court reads thus: "Advocate Shri. Bargat, states that in view of the subsequent event, ground is now raised before the Additional Collector. He therefore, seeks permission to withdraw the petition, with liberty. Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3, has no objection. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to be withdrawn." 5. In the another round of litigation, petitioner challenged the said proceedings by preferring a dispute before the Additional Collector Yavatmal. By order dated 11.11.2008 said application was dismissed. Later on petitioner preferred appeal against that order before the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati dismissed the said appeal by the impugned order. It is necessary to note his observations in the impugned order: "4. As per the order of this authority dated 22.9.2008 special meeting was convened on 1.10.2008. Notice of this meeting has been issued to all the members as per rule. Discussion took place on the points mentioned in the requisition notice submitted before the Tahsildar. Appellant was absent in the meeting and therefore her contention cannot be taken into consideration. The appellant had filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur and she had withdrawn the writ petition and as such no matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Appellant was absent in the meeting and therefore her contention cannot be taken into consideration. The appellant had filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur and she had withdrawn the writ petition and as such no matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Now except this case there is no case pending before any court of law and hence contention of the appellant that appeal pending before the competent court is without any support. No confidence was passed by majority." He dismissed the said appeal saying that it is devoid of merit. As indicated above, this order is challenged in this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notice of the special meeting for considering no-confidence motion was not properly served. There were no pro-poser or seconder to the resolution of no confidence motion in a special meeting was held during the pendency of the writ petition. According to him, said meeting was illegal, as at that time writ petition was pending, though there was no express stay for holding such meeting. According to him, tahsildar who conducted that meeting in pursuance of the earlier order of the Additional Commissioner, should not have conducted that meeting in view of the judgment of this court reported in 2007(2) Mh.L.J. 481 : [2007(4) ALL MR 231] Kishor slo. Bhikansingh Rajpnt Vs. Preeti wlo Kishor Rajput. According to him, when the order of the Additional Commissioner was challenged before the High Court and it was seized with the matter, it was expected of the Tahsildar to stay his hands away. He should have declined to conduct the special meeting. He has also relied on the judgment of this court reported in 2002(1) Mh.L.J. 916 : [2002(2) ALL MR 316] Mandabai Balnath Rohom and others Vs. Ashok Fakira Chandar & others, wherein it has been held that the meeting rules are applicable even to the special meeting. in which no confidence motion is to be considered and therefore, when there were no proposes and seconder to the proposal of resolution of no confidence so moved, the carrying of no confidence motion against the petitioner was illegal. He has also referred to the judgment of this court reported in 2002(4) ALL MR 110 - Sou. in which no confidence motion is to be considered and therefore, when there were no proposes and seconder to the proposal of resolution of no confidence so moved, the carrying of no confidence motion against the petitioner was illegal. He has also referred to the judgment of this court reported in 2002(4) ALL MR 110 - Sou. Indubai w/o. Vcdu Khairnar V s. The State of Maharashtra & others wherein it has been held that when the mandatory rules are not followed, the proceedings of the motion of no confidence may vitiate. Thus according to the learned counsel, the special meeting held by the Tahsildar, in pursuance to the earlier order of Additional Commissioner, Amravati was illegal inasmuch as the writ petition was pending before this court to challenge the said order and even if that meeting was held, the proceedings therein were illegal for want of following of the mandatory rules of the "meetings". 1t is also his submission that as in the first meeting no confidence motion was not properly passed, Tahsildar were prevented from considering the said motion again within a period of one year. 7. Learned A.G.P. has supported the order impugned for the reasons recorded, which are extracted above, from the order of the learned Additional Commissioner. He has also relied on the judgment of this court reported in 1998(3) Mh.L.J. 622 : [1998(4) ALL MR 470] Hindurao Dnyanu Shirtode & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, wherein it has been held that the rule which are applicable for considering no confidence motion are the only rules applicable for such special meetings. The rules Bombay Village Panchayat Meetings Rules, 1959 are not applicable to such meetings and therefore, according to him, the impugned order is correct at law. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent nos A to 9 has specifically relied on the observations of this court in 1998(1) Mh.L.J, 43: [1997(4) ALL MR 267] Prakash Barku Patil Vs, State of Maharashtra & others to contend that in the present case, there were six members in support of no confidence motion and nobody was opposing; as petitioner was absent. He has also relied on the Division Bench Judgment of this court reported in 1998(3) Mh,L.J. 204: [1998(4) ALL MR 479] Nimba Rajaram mali Vs. Collector, Jalgaon and others, wherein it has been observed in paragraph 13 thus: "13. He has also relied on the Division Bench Judgment of this court reported in 1998(3) Mh,L.J. 204: [1998(4) ALL MR 479] Nimba Rajaram mali Vs. Collector, Jalgaon and others, wherein it has been observed in paragraph 13 thus: "13. In a democratic society what is important is the will of the majority and the elected representative must honour the will of the majority. It is immaterial to analyse and debate on the reasons behind the will of the 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 interfered with by the court or statutory authorities adjudicating such disputes. In the case at hand, both the authorities below, on perusal of record before them, have recorded clear findings that the resolution was passed in keeping with the requirements of the No Confidence Motion Rules and there was no breach of any statutory provisions. These findings do not suffer from any error, leave alone error apparent, on this face of the record." He has also relied on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this court reported in 2008(2) Mh.L.J. 274 - Prabhawati Vijaykumar Khivsara Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, wherein relying on the judgment of this court in Nimba Rajaram, referred to above, it has been observed thus: "22. In a democratic set up a person is expected to respect the mandate of majority. State of Maharashtra & others, wherein relying on the judgment of this court in Nimba Rajaram, referred to above, it has been observed thus: "22. In a democratic set up a person is expected to respect the mandate of majority. Support of a majority is fundamental in the democratic set up and particularly when no prejudice is pointed out by alleged departure from the procedural requirement, the mandate of the majority cannot be interfered with lightly by this Court, In that view of the matter, I am unable to find any merit in both the petitions, both the petitions, are therefore, rejected. " He has further referred to the decision of this court reported in 2003(1) Mh.L.J. 420 , Durgadas Ukhaji More and others Vs. Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik and others wherein it has been observed that in the democratic institution. will of majority has to prevail. 9. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, particularly of the petitioner, that the Tahsildar should have stayed away from holding special meeting as writ petition was pending, suffice it to say that it seems that the petitioner had withdrawn her earlier writ petition. I have quoted the order passed in that writ petition above. The petitioner had given up her right to amend the petition in the changed circumstances and claim appropriate reliefs. In my opinion, she would be disentitled from raising this contention. She had withdrawn that petition with liberty, meaning thereby she opted to take recourse to the course of raising dispute before the Collector and take appropriate challenge to the passing of the said no confidence motion against her; afresh. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that Tahsildar was bound by the order of Additional Commissioner in appeal. Had he disobeyed it, without any support of suitable order in favour of petitioner, he would have been also running a risk of action. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to accept this contention of the petitioner. 10. Turning to the contention regarding applicability of the rules i.e. meeting rules to the special meeting which is called for consideration of no confidence motion, it would be seen that the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Single Bench, of this court reported in 2002(1) Mh.L.J. 916 : [2002(2) ALL MR 316] Mandabai Balnath Rohorn and others Vs. Ashok Fakira Chandar and others, whereas respondents have relied on the Division Bench judgment of this court reported in 1998(3) Mh.L.J. 622 : [2002(2) ALL MR 316] [Hindurao Dnyanu Shirtode and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. The observations of the Division Bench in paragraph 8 need to be noticed in this regard: "8. Dr. Chowdhary next contended that neither the Motion of No Confidence has been proposed by any member nor has the same been seconded by another member and hence the No Confidence Motion is illegal. He has placed reliance on Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959. The relevant portion of the said section provides as under:- "17(1). A member who has given notice of a motion shall, when called on either(a) state that he does not wish to move the motion, or (b) move the motion in which case he shall commence his speech by a formal motion in the terms appearing on the list of business, after the motion is duly seconded. " This again in our view will have no application to a meeting to consider a No Confidence Motion which will be governed by the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence) Rule, 1975. The aforesaid Rules namely Bombay Village Panchayats Meetings) Rules, 1959 and Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No- Confidence) Rules, 1975 have been framed in view of the powers conferred on the State Government by section 176 of the Act. The same section provides for making Rules for different purposes of the Act. Different Rules are therefore, framed for achieving different objects and purposes of the Act. It will therefore not be open to introduce one set of Rules while considering the provision of the other Rules which have been framed for distinct objects and purposes of the Act. Moreover, as far as the present Motion is concerned. the same is deemed to have been moved by the members who have signed the requisition and had voted for the same. Therefore, the said contention of Dr. Chowdhary is also rejected." It appears that this view of the Division Bench was not considered in Mandabai's case wherein it was observed thus: "12. the same is deemed to have been moved by the members who have signed the requisition and had voted for the same. Therefore, the said contention of Dr. Chowdhary is also rejected." It appears that this view of the Division Bench was not considered in Mandabai's case wherein it was observed thus: "12. It was sought to be contended that the rules relating to convening of the meeting do not apply to the meeting held to deal with the No-confidence Motion and rules which are to be applied to such cases are No-confidence Motion Rules, 1975. There cannot be a dispute that the procedure to be followed while dealing with the No confidence Motion is prescribed under the No-confidence Motion Rules. However, those rules themselves and in particular, sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 provide that the special meeting for the purpose shall be convened within seven days from the date of the receipt of such notice. The expression "special meeting" under these rules, cannot have a different meaning than the same would have in other rules framed under the provisions of section 176 of the said Act, unless the context otherwise requires. The Meetings Rules, deal with ordinary meeting as well as special meeting and in case of special meeting, there is specific provision that such a meeting can be convened within a period of one day. No doubt, those rules prescribe notice in that regard to be issued by the Secretary, but it cannot be ignored that in terms of those rules, special meeting can be held within a period of one day. Issuance of notice is meant to convey the fact of scheduled meeting to the member. It is immaterial whether it is issued by the secretary or Tahsildar as those notices will have to be issued by different authorities in accordance with the authority in that regard given by various provisions in the statute and rules made there under. However, the fact remains that the special meeting can be convened within a period of one day. It is immaterial whether it is issued by the secretary or Tahsildar as those notices will have to be issued by different authorities in accordance with the authority in that regard given by various provisions in the statute and rules made there under. However, the fact remains that the special meeting can be convened within a period of one day. The intention of Legislature under section 35 of the said Act is clear that when the notice regarding No confidence motion is served upon the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar has to act swiftly and immediately and has to get himself satisfied that such notice has been served by one-third of the total number of members of the panchayat, and thereafter, to hold necessary meeting to deal with such motion." In my view when specific judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is available, on the aspect of the contention raised by petitioner this court would be bound by that view and therefore, 1 am of the view that the rules relating to the special meeting which is called for consideration of no confidence motion would be only Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence) Rules and not the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules. Moreover in this case all other members except petitioners are in favour of no confidence motion. So such technical breaches, even if there are any, the same would not invalidate the will of majority, 11. At this stage, it is necessary to note the observations of the division Bench of this Court in Nimba Rajaram's case extracted above, so also the observations of the learned single Judge of this court in Prabhavati's case referred above. Therefore, I do not find that view taken by the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner in the impugned orders is incorrect. 12. In my opinion, in the special circumstances of this case it would have been proper on the part of the petitioner to resign; as none of the members in the Gram Panchayat was supporting her. But she did not choose that way and has tried to justify her stand in the proceedings before the authorities and this court. 13. It may be mentioned that this court by order dated 25.2.2009, has observed that it is informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that, none of the Gram Panchayat member is supporting the petitioner Sarpanch. But she did not choose that way and has tried to justify her stand in the proceedings before the authorities and this court. 13. It may be mentioned that this court by order dated 25.2.2009, has observed that it is informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that, none of the Gram Panchayat member is supporting the petitioner Sarpanch. Therefore, petitioner was asked to make a statement as to how many members of the Gram Panchayat are supporting her. Petitioner took considerable time to make statement, and later on filed affidavit saying "In this respect, she submit that if no confidence motion is reconsidered and secret voting takes place, I can get majority votes". She tried to contend that petition was for questioning the procedure adopted by the tahsildar and because no proper notice was served, the proceedings of no confidence motion against her stood vitiated. 14. It cannot be forgotten that even if it is assumed for a moment that the notice was not properly served on her, for the first meeting, she was aware of the second meeting, because she has tried to contend that when she went to place of special meeting, the meeting was already over. It clearly appears that she had tried to make out a case that there were some technical flaws in holding special meeting for one reason or another. However, fact remains that in the Gram Panchayat of 7 members, 6 are present respondent and none of them is saying that he is supporting the petitioner. Therefore, it is obvious that petitioner does not command any support from members much less majority in the Gram Panchayat. When the facts are apparent as already stated above, it was for the petitioner to take democratic step to resign herself. In my opinion, even in the proceedings to claim a discretionary and equitable reliefs in the writ jurisdiction, in such a situation, the exercise of such extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner would be travesty of democratic values. It is impossible to envisage a situation where Sarpanch, who has no support to her, apparent from the proved facts on record, is allowed to continue as Sarpanch. In these circumstances also, in my opinion, it would not be permissible to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash and set aside the order of Collector and Commissioner challenged herein above. 15. In these circumstances also, in my opinion, it would not be permissible to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash and set aside the order of Collector and Commissioner challenged herein above. 15. In this view of the matter, petition needs to be dismissed, Same is dismissed. No order as to cost. Petition dismissed.