Judgment Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally at the admission stage. 2. The no confidence motion passed by majority of 8 members out of 11 members dated 28.11.2010 is questioned in both the writ petitions by Sarpanch and Upsarpanch. The status of the parties is not in controversy. The statutory position under Section 35 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short "of the Act"), indeed mandates the authority, particularly the Tahsildar, at the time of motion of no confidence, to allow the Sarpanch or the Upsarpanch as of right to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceedings at the meeting, including the right to vote. The situation demonstrated herein is, on 28.11.2010 an application was moved by the petitioners to the Tahsildar, Tahsil Karyalaya, Shirur subjecting to allow them to speak for two minutes at the time of no confidence motion. This application is acknowledged by Tahsildar. The no confidence motion, though is attended by majority, does not demonstrate that opportunity was given to the petitioners to address the gathering. Mere reference that the Tahsildar asked the members present in the meeting about the no confidence motion will not dilute the mandatory situation illustrated under Section 35 (2) of the Act. The situation is again aggravated when the no confidence motion in relation to Upsarpanch Vijayabai Dongar was recorded without any compliance of mandatory requisition. 3. It was canvassed that the letter dated 28.11.2010 is subsequently given. However, I do not see any support to the same from any corner. It was expected of the learned Tahsildar to have allowed the petitioners to participate in the special meeting held on 28.11.2010. 4. Reliance placed by Mr Barde to the judgment in the matter of Sahebrao Khandu Patil & Ors. Vs. Sau.Joharabai Latif Patel & Ors., reported in 2002 (4) ALL MR 81 speaks of recording that the motion was passed by majority and there was error about how many members participated and who voted in favour of the resolution. No such situation creeps in here. The very right bestowed under Section 35(2) of the Act has been obliterated. 5. In the matter of Sanjay Pandurang Chavan & Ors. Vs. No such situation creeps in here. The very right bestowed under Section 35(2) of the Act has been obliterated. 5. In the matter of Sanjay Pandurang Chavan & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2003 (4) ALL MR 242, it was observed, "In the no confidence motion against Sarpanch, Sarpanch did not take part in the meeting and, therefore, he was not allowed to raise technical points in order to overturn the wishes of the majority." 6. In the democratic process, the majority view cannot be flouted or thrown at winds by taking a technical view of the matter, still the mandate under Section 35(2) of the Act has to be complied in its letter and spirit. Any violation thereof will be vitiating the entire proceeding, as was held. In the judgment of Sahebrao (supra), this Court has given reference to the judgment reported in AIR 1917 P.C. 142 in the matter of Montreal Street Railway Company Vs. Normandin. Even reading the said judgment of the Privy Council, it is quite clear that there was no discretion or directory situation under Section 35(2) of the Act to the learned Tahsildar and the learned Tahsildar since did not adhere to the obligation cast on him, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are being vitiated and, therefore, calls for interference. The orders of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad speaks that the application to participate in the proceedings is given subsequently. However, this is not supported from any front, as indicated earlier. The learned Commissioner also made a reference that in a democratic process, majority view must be respected. There is no challenge to such legal position, however, law mandates that the aggrieved party should also be heard, which exercise is not carried in the present case. Consequently, both the Writ Petitions allowed. The decision/resolution dated 28.11.2010 passed by the Grampanchayat, village Jat Nandur, Taluka Shirur is set aside. The respondents/members are at liberty to adopt the legal course under the law. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs.