IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition no. 3623/2011 Gopal Shankar Dhok ..VS.. The Commissioner, Nagpur & Others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.V. Bhutada, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. V.G. Dhage, Adv. for respondent nos. 6 to 15. Mr. A.S. Sonare, AGP for respondent no. 1 to 5 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 7 th September, 2011. Heard. The only ground raised by the petitioner for challenging the orders passed by the authorities below and for setting aside the resolution dated 6th January, 2011 is that the resolution was not proposed or seconded in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules. In the instant case, the 'No Confidence Motion' was passed against the petitioner Sarpanch by more than 2/3 rd majority. The record shows that the meeting was conducted on 6.1.2011 at 2.00 p.m. in the Gram Panchayat Office at Adyal. The petitioner, as also, the other members were present in the meeting. At the commencement of the meeting, the charges levelled against the petitioner were read before the members of the Grampanchayat. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to refute or deny the charges levelled against him and also to have his say. After the petitioner was granted an opportunity of speaking against the motion, the voting was conducted by show of hand after the majority of members agreed to the aforesaid mode of voting. Ten out of fourteen members voted in favour of the resolution. A similar plea that the motion was not proposed and seconded was raised in a bunch of writ petitions bearing W.P. No. 157/2011 and others decided on 26.7.2011. In almost similar set of facts, this court held in the aforesaid unreported judgment that it was not open for the petitioner to urge in the peculiar facts of those cases that the motion was not moved and seconded and therefore the entire meeting and the resolution is invalid and illegal. This court observed that the requirement of Rule 17 is not a mandate but a matter of procedure and unless serious prejudice for want of compliance thereof is demonstrated, the motion cannot be said to be invalid and illegal nor can any deficiency be found in the conduct of the meeting. Since no prejudice was demonstrated in the cases decided by the unreported judgment dated 26.7.2011, this court rejected the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner therein. In the instant case also, the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate the prejudice caused by the absence of compliance with the requirement of Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules, assuming that it is applicable. A similar view has been expressed by this court in the order dated 10th of August, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 3862/2011 and the plea raised by the petitioner in that case that there was no proposer or seconder to the resolution passed against him was rejected on the ground that it was a highly technical view which would not impinge upon the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner in that case. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 17 is mandatory and the resolution is invalid because the motion was not proposed or seconded in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules is liable to be rejected in view of the view taken by this court in the unreported order and judgment dated 10.1.2011 and 25.7.2011 in Writ Petition no. 3862/2011 and a bunch of Writ Petitions bearing no. 157/2011 and others, respectively. In the instant case also, the minutes of the meeting show that the resolution was read, there was a discussion on the alleged charges levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner was granted a reasonable opportunity to express his views. In the facts of this case, the no confidence motion cannot be invalidated only because the motion was not proposed or seconded. The unreported judgment dated 18.1.2010 in Writ Petition No. 9819/2011 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts as in that case there was no discussion in the meeting at all. Since the orders passed by the authorities below are just and proper and are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record, they call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan