IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1733/2011 SAU. NIRMALA BHALERAO ..VS.. THE TAHSILDAR AND OTHERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 11, 2011. Heard Shri Saoji, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Bodade, the learned AGP for the respondent no.1,11 and 12. Two grounds have been raised by the petitioner for impugning the orders passed by the authorities on 30.12.2010 and 23.2.2011 dismissing the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner, challenging the no- confidence motion passed against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the charges levelled against the petitioner as the notice issued to the petitioner in regard to the no confidence motion did not mention the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is rightly brought to the notice of this court by the learned AGP that this ground has not been raised by the petitioner before the Additional Collector and this shows that the petitioner was not aggrieved by non-mentioning of the charges in the notice of the meeting. The extract of the proceedings show that the petitioner was present in the meeting and had also participated in the same. Thus, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner before this court that the non-mention of the charges in the notice of no confidence motion meeting has caused prejudice to the petitioner is an afterthought and is liable to be rejected. Moreover, the document at Annexure:1 of the petition is merely a covering letter which speaks about the special meeting dated 23.9.2010, but the Annexure to this covering letter is not annexed to the petition and hence the submission made on behalf of the petitioner before this court also appears to be ill founded. The second submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the no-confidence motion is liable to be set aside on the ground that the motion was not proposed and seconded, is liable to be rejected, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court reported in 1998(3) Mh.L.J. Page 622 which clearly lays down that even if a no confidence motion is not proposed or seconded, the same would not be rendered illegal as no specific procedure for moving and seconding a motion is prescribed by the Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpanch and Up- Sarpanch [No Confidence Motion] Rules 1975, which are applicable in such cases. Hence for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP