{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10386 OF 2010 Deepak Pandharinath Patil Petitioner Versus Bhojmal Malaji Patil & others Respondents Mr.B.R.Waramaa, advocate for petitioner Mr.P.B.Salunke, advocate for Respondents No.2 & 3. Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for respondents no.9 to 11. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND K.K.TATED, JJ. DATE : 18 th November, 2010 PER COURT: 1 By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the no confidence motion passed against him in the meeting dated 25th October, 2010. 2 Shri Waramaa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the meeting, in which no confidence motion has been passed, has been held in contravention of sub rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Committees (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1966. He submits that the said rule contemplates the notice of the meeting either to be given by hand or under U.C.P. Shri Waramaa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that service of notice on wife is not a sufficient notice in accordance with said rule and, therefore, entire proceedings are vitiated. 3 It is an undisputed position that wife of the present {2} petitioner has been served with the notice of the meeting. Petitioner does not dispute this, but insists that instead of wife, the notice either ought to have been served upon him personally or under U.C.P. 4 It is, thus, clear that it is not as if that the petitioner was not aware about the meeting. As a matter of fact, it appears that the petitioner, in order to avoid service, has permitted the notice to be received by his wife. It is also impossible to believe that the petitioner, who was working as Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, if was regular in attending the office of the Panchayat Samiti, was unaware of the notice issued against him and the contemplated meeting. The Apex Court, in the case of K. Narasimhiah Vs. H.C. Singri Gowda & others, reported in AIR 1966 SC 330, has held that unless it is pointed out that prejudice is done to a particular person by non service of notice, then, such a non service would not be considered as mandatory, but directory. In the present case, we find that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, inasmuch as, out of ten members, seven members have voted against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. 5 Writ Petition stands rejected. K.K.TATED B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp1038610