1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4729/2011 (GANSHYAM KHUBA DHANDE VERSUS ADDL. COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI DN., AMRAVATI & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.A. Gawande, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23 , 2011 . Heard. The petitioner has challenged the resolution of No Confidence Motion passed against the petitioner-Sarpanch mainly on two grounds. According to the petitioner, the motion of no confidence was not proposed and seconded in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules. Secondly, it is the case of the petitioner that the meeting was not conducted by the Tahsildar but, was conducted by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner challenging the validity of the no confidence on the ground that it was not proposed and seconded as required under the provisions of Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules is liable to be rejected as though the minutes of the special meeting did not clearly show that the motion was proposed and seconded, it clearly appeared from the minutes that the subject of the meeting and the 2 charges levelled against the Sarpanch were discussed by all the seven members, present in the meeting. Since the petitioner was absent in the meeting, there was no question of granting any opportunity to the petitioner to reply the allegations levelled against him. After the subject was discussed at length, it appears from the minutes that the election was conducted by show of hands and all the seven members present in the meeting voted in favour of the no confidence motion. Hence, it appears that this is a case where the procedure for conducting the meeting was duly followed and the procedure followed by the Tahsildar did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, more so because he was absent in the meeting. This Court has, in the similar set of facts, held that the No Confidence Motion cannot be invalidated merely because the motion is not proposed or seconded. It would be necessary to refer to the unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.167 of 2011, dated 26.07.2011 and an unreported order in Writ Petition No.3862 of 2011, dated 10.08.2011. The second submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the meeting was not conducted by the Tahsildar and was conducted by the Secretary is also ill- founded and is liable to be rejected. In fact, in the minutes, it is clearly observed that Tahsildar Shri Kiran Patil of village Dharni was present at the meeting. Moreover, this ground has not been specifically raised by the petitioner in the application filed by the petitioner before the Additional Collector under Section 35 (3)(b) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The orders passed by the authorities do not call for interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 3 For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE