906-wp-7565-2026.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7565 OF 2026 Padmabai Shamrao Karhe VERSUS District Collector Beed And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade & Legal Associates AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. R.K. Ingole Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. V.P. Savant ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : JULY 22, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Present writ petition takes exception to order dated 03.06.2026 passed by District Collector, Beed under Section 35(3-B) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, whereby no confidence motion passed against petitioner has been invalidated. 2. Learned advocate appearing for petitioner raises two fold contentions. Firstly, it is contention of petitioner that earlier, petitioner was subjected to no confidence motion. On 03.02.2025, Tahsildar conducted special meeting for no confidence motion. The Tahsildar had declared that no confidence motion was successfully passed. The petitioner had challenged no confidence motion before Collector in appeal. It was allowed and no confidence motion passed in meeting dated 06.03.2025 was quashed and set aside. The said order is confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4659 of 2025. Therefore, second no confidence motion which is moved against 2026:BHC-AUG:30322 906-wp-7565-2026.odt (2) petitioner on 16.01.2026 is barred by law, as it is within two years of earlier no confidence motion. The petitioner raises second contention that during meeting of no confidence motion, voting by ballot paper was permitted without providing independent ballot box. 3. So far as first contention of petitioner, this Court finds that earlier no confidence motion passed against petitioner was invalidated, as notice of meeting was not served in accordance with Rule 7 of Meeting Rules. Since, technical error was found in proceeding, entire proceeding for no confidence motion was invalidated. In such a case, it cannot be said that no confidence motion moved against petitioner was failed. Therefore, subsequent no confidence motion against petitioner on 16.01.2026 cannot be said to be barred by law. The second contention of petitioner that voting was permitted through ballot paper which is not accepted mode cannot be countenanced, as voting by ballot paper was permitted in meeting on demand of members. Secondly, record indicates that majority of members voted against petitioner and passed no confidence motion by requisite majority. 4. In that view of matter, this Court finds no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition stands rejected. (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) Mujaheed//