1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.131 OF 2009 Anil s/o Kamlakar Ambhore .. Appellant Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and others .. Respondents Shri S.J.Salunke, Advocate for appellant Shri V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondents 1 to 3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 23rd July 2009 PER COURT : 1. This letters patent appeal takes exception to an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 2.7.2009. The subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge was the orders of the two authorities below upholding the passing of the resolution of no confidence against the petitioner. The point which was urged before the learned Single Judge was that one of the members i.e. the present respondent No.12 was disqualified under Section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act and since she had not challenged the judgment of disqualification, the said judgment had attained finality and, therefore, her participation in the meeting was bad in law and consequently, the resolution of no confidence was also liable to be struck down. The 2 learned Single Judge at paragraph 3 of the order has referred to the fact that the grampanchayat consists of 11 members and out of 11 members, 9 members had supported the no confidence motion. The learned Single Judge also found if the vote of respondent No.12 is ignored even though the resolution of no confidence was passed against the petitioner by overwhelming majority. 2. It is urged by Shri Salunke, learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge was in error in observing that the vacancy had not been notified as our attention has been drawn to the communication of the Village Development Officer by which the Village Development Officer had informed the Collector about the disqualification of both, the petitioner and respondent No.12. It is urged before us that the appellant had filed a revision challenging the order of disqualification which came to be allowed and the impugned order insofar as it relates to the appellant came to be quashed. The sum and substance of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since respondent No.12 was disqualified, her participation in the meeting has rendered passing of the motion against the petitioner void ab initio. The learned Single Judge has repelled the aforesaid contention and relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in K.Narasimhiah vs. H.C.Singri Gowda and ors, AIR 1966 S.C.330 wherein the Supreme Court had held that unless a prejudice is said to have been caused on account of procedural requirement, the Court should not interfere in the motion of no confidence. In the present case, the motion of no confidence, even if the 3 vote of respondent No.12 is ignored, was passed by majority of eight votes from out of the total strength of the grampanchayat which consists eleven members. In the light of that, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge to warrant any interference. Consequently, this letters patent appeal is dismissed. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) vvr/131.09lpa