1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 481/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4729 OF 2011 (Ghanshyam Khuba Dhande vs. Addl. Commissioner, Amravati Division & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri N.A. Gawande, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. T.D. Khade, AGP for the respondents. ….. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 05, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant challenges the judgment dated 23.09.2011 of the learned Single Judge, rejecting the petitioner's petition challenging the resolution of the Village Panchayat, passing the Motion of No Confidence against the appellant/ petitioner, who was Sarpanch of the Village. The appellant challenges the Motion of No Confidence on two grounds. The first was that the motion of no confidence was not proposed and seconded in accordance with Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, and secondly the appellant contended that the meeting was not conducted by the Tahsildar but it was conducted by the Secretary of the 2 Gram Panchayat. As far as second ground is concerned, the learned Single Judge has noted that in the minutes of the meeting, it was clearly observed that the Tahsildar was present at the time of meeting. As regards first ground, the learned Single Judge has noted that the petitioner was not present at the meeting and that as many as seven members present in the meeting passed the resolution unanimously. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, non compliance with the rule, requiring the motion to be proposed and seconded was of no consequence. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly relied on the unreported judgment dated 10th August 2010 passed by another learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3862 of 2011 (Ranjeet Wamanrao Rahate vs. Division Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur & Ors.) taking the view. The learned Single Judge in that case took the view that the plea raised by the petitioner that there was no proposer or seconder to the said Resolution passed against him can, therefore, be said to be highly technical view and would not impinge upon the no confidence motion passed against him, as ultimately the right to continue as a Sarpanch has to be decided on the floor of the House. The petitioner unfortunately failed in the said test. 3 We agree with the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE. *GS.