( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3937 OF 2010 Amarsing s/o Bhavadu Gavit PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.S. Bagul, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 to 4. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 29th April, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner is ex-Village Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bhadwad, Taluka Navapur. A No Confidence Motion was moved against him. It was placed for consideration of the members of the Village Panchayat on 16th September, 2008. Out of eleven (11) members, eight (8) attended the meeting. The petitioner initially remained absent, but subsequently appeared before the village panchayat members. Thus, in all ten (10) members ( 2 ) appeared after commencement of the proceedings, including the petitioner. The Presiding Officer informed the members that they were free to discuss motion. It appears that after discussion, eight (8) members of the village panchayat voted in favour of No Confidence Motion, which was, therefore, passed. 3. The learned counsel would submit that the appellate Authority did not give proper opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the impugned judgement rendered by the Additional Collector, Nandurbar ought to have been reversed by the revisional Authority. He would submit that the date of hearing was given to the petitioner on 19th January, 2009, but the appellate Authority got preponed to 15th January, 2009 and, therefore, he was unable to attend. The revisional Authority noticed that 19th January, 2009 was not the scheduled date, but it was 12th January, 2009. It was further noticed that the Additional Collector was on official tour and, therefore, the date was adjourned to 15th January, 2009. The objections raised by the petitioner were of technical nature. It does not appear that he was substantially prejudiced and particularly when it is explicit that ( 3 ) eight (8) members were against him at the relevant time when the motion was passed. Consequently, merely on certain technical grounds, he is not entitled to continue in the office. Under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed. NO costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp3937-2010