1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 536 OF 2008 (Ratilal Bhonduji Pawar .v. The Additional Commissioner and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Smt. Neeta Jog, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. I.L. Bodade, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the No Confidence Motion passed against him in the meeting dated 29th September, 2007 vide which the No Confidence Motion was carried by a majority of 5:2 in a Gram Panchayat consisting of seven members and the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Yavatmal thereby rejecting the dispute filed by the petitioner and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The respondent Nos.5 to 10 had submitted a requisition to the respondent No.3 on 26th September, 2 2007 thereby proposing to move no confidence motion against the present petitioner. The said requisition was placed in the meeting held on 29th September, 2007 and the no confidence motion came to be passed against the petitioner by a majority of 5:2. A dispute was carried before the Collector and subsequently appeal was carried before the learned Additional Commissioner. Smt. Neeta Jog, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised the following three grounds in support of the petitioner – (i) that on the requisition, date is not mentioned and as such it cannot be said that the mandatory requirement of holding a meeting within a period of seven days from the date of requisition has been complied with; (ii) that the charges levelled against the petitioner were vague and as such the petitioner was deprived of putting up his case in a proper manner; and (iii) the notice was served on a female member and as such there was violation of Rule 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules. The Apex Court in the case of K.Narasimhiah .v. H.C. Singri Gowda and others (reported in AIR 1966 SC 330) has held that unless a prejudice is pointed out to have been caused to a person against whom no confidence motion has been passed, the Court should not lightly interfere with the no 3 confidence motion on the ground of non compliance with the procedural requirement. In so far as the first ground is concerned, from the record, it is clear that the requisition was submitted on 26th September, 2007, whereas the meeting has been held on 29th September, 2007. As such, it can be seen that the meeting has been held within a period of seven days from requisition. In so far as the vagueness of the allegations is concerned, it could be seen that the charges are specific. It cannot be said that the charges were so vague that the petitioner could not have understood the same and defended his case. In so far as the third ground is concerned, no doubt that the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 194/2007 is well merited. However, the said judgment cannot be applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as in the said case, the person against whom no confidence motion was passed, was not present in the meeting. In the present case, the petitioner was not only present in the meeting but has also participated in the proceedings. As such no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner on the alleged non compliance of the rule. 4 In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the petition is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.