1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 206 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4751 OF 2008 (Sau. Sindhu Santosh Sawant vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. JUNE 30, 2009. Heard Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Kalwaghe, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8. This is an appeal challenging the order dated 12.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 4751 of 2008 filed by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that she was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dawargaon, Tahsil - Sindhkhed Raja from OBC category as the said seat was reserved for OBC category. It is further her case that on 24.6.2008, some of the members requisitioned to the Tahsildar, Sindhkhed Raja for passing no confidence motion against the appellant. The Tahsildar conducted a meeting of Gram Panchayat members at Marathi Primary School for passing No Confidence Motion against the appellant and same was passed and 2 confirmed by him, which according to the appellant is contrary to the date, time and place mentioned in the notice dated 24.6.2008. The appeal preferred by the appellant came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Collector, Buldana, by order dated 25.8.2008. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant by order dated 22.10.2008. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 12.3.2009 dismissed writ petition filed by the appellant. The only contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that place of the Special meeting for considering No confidence motion was changed and the said meeting was not held at the place notified in the notice of no confidence motion issued by the Tahsildar. In support of his said contention, the learned counsel submitted that the provisions of Rule 6 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meetings) Rules, stipulated that such a notice should specify the date, time and place of every meeting of the Panchayat and that every meeting of Panchayat shall be held at the office of the Village Panchayat or Village Chawadi. According to the learned counsel, as the meeting was not held at the place specified in the 3 said notice, the motion of no confidence passed therein gets vitiated and deserves to be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 to 8 submitted that the meeting was held at Marathi Primary School where according to him, the meeting of the Panchayat were always held for last many years as the Village Panchayat did not have a office. It was further his contention that the appellant herself as also other members of the Panchayat were present at the said meeting. It was further his contention that as such there was no change in the venue as specified in the said notice. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the said contention has held that all the members of the Gram Panchayat were present at the special meeting called for considering No confidence motion and none of the members including the petitioner, who was present, had raised any grievance with regard to the venue of the said meeting. The appellant participated in the proceedings and there was no grievance raised by her as regards any prejudice caused to her as the meeting was held at Marathi Primary School. The motion was passed by show of hands in which five 4 members voted in favour of the resolution and two against. The learned Single Judge also relied upon certificate issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat to the effect that there was no special building of Gram Panchayat, Dawargaon and since there is availability of the building of Marathi Primary School at Village Dawargaon, all the meetings of Gram Panchayat including Gram Sabha were held there since the year 1995. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, we find that admittedly when the meeting of No confidence was discussed, the appellant had not raised any grievance with regard to the venue where such meeting was held. The notice issued to the appellant clearly specified that the meeting will be held at Gram Panchayat office at Dawargaon. The date and time was also specified which is dated 24.6.2008. There was no doubt in the minds of the members as to the place where such meeting will be held, as admittedly all the members including the appellant were present at the said meeting and even the appellant did not raise any such grievance at the time when No confidence motion was discussed. Apart from that the appellant in her grounds of appeal has also admitted that there was 5 no Gram Panchayat office at village Dawargaon and the meeting i.e. General and Special Meetings of Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha were also conducted at Marathi Primary School at Dawargaon. This fact stands corroborated by the said certificate issued by the Secretary which has been relied upon by the learned Singh Judge. Even in the grounds of appeal preferred by the appellant before the Additional Collector, no grievance with regard to the venue of the said meeting was raised therein. Such ground was sought to be raised only in appeal preferred before the Additional Commissioner, which is clearly an after though on the part of the appellant. As such, no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the appellant as the meeting was held at Marathi Primary School at Dawargaon. Considering the evidence on record, we find that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12th March 2009. As such, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.