( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5090 OF 2010 Laxmibai w/o Bhaurao Taur PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ….. Mrs. U.P. Kale – Wayal, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. B.A. Dhengle, advocate for the respondents No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8. .…. [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th July, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgement and order rendered by learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, whereby her appeal was dismissed. 2. The petitioner was Sarpanch of village panchayat, Kalegaon Thadi under Majalgaon Tahsil. The elected Managing Body consisted of seven (7) members including the petitioner. Out of them, six (6) members allegedly issued communication to the effect that they had decided to move No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. The Tahsildar called a special ( 2 ) meeting on 08-02-2010 after receiving the requisition for No Confidence Motion as per communication dated 02-02-2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a civil suit for injunction. Ad-interim injunction was issued by the civil Court. It was vacated on 10-02-2010 and, therefore, the Tahsildar again summoned the special meeting on 16-02-2010. The meeting was attended by all the members including the petitioner. The No Confidence Motion was passed in the said meeting and, therefore, the petitioner was held disqualified as per the order dated 23-04-2010 rendered by the Collector. The petitioner preferred appeal which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order. 3. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the notice of No Confidence Motion was not given in a format as provided for under Rule 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975. It is argued that the requisition of the special meeting was not duly verified by the Tahsildar and, therefore, very inception of the meeting is illegal. It is further argued that meeting ought to have been called within seven (7) days from the first day of communication seeking request to call special meeting. However, the procedure adopted by the ( 3 ) Tahsildar was incorrect and improper and as such, the Motion ought to have been dismissed. I find it difficult to countenance the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule 2 (1) does not require particular verification of the Motion or affirmation by the members at the bottom of the form provided for. Considering the tenor of form of notice provided under relevant rules and the notice itself as issued by the six (6) members, it appears that there is substantial compliance in view of the fact that the necessary information is given in the notice and that the members have signed the same at the bottom of the communication dated 02-02-2010. It is true that there is no separate declaration that the facts stated by them were true to the best of their information and their knowledge. However, this is only a procedural defect which does not vitiate the meeting itself. The Tahsildar could not hold first meeting because of the intervening ad-interim injunction issued by the civil Court. No sooner the suit was dismissed on 10-02-2010, the second notice was issued on 11-02-2010 by the Tahsildar. Needless to say, the Tahsildar acted with promptitude. As stated before, the petitioner was duly served with the notice of the special meeting which was held on 16-02-2010. The Motion was passed by the concurrent and ( 4 ) cumulative voting of the six (6) members, who casted votes in favour of the Motion. The impugned order does not suffer from vice of arbitrariness or perversity. In this view of the matter, the petition is without substance and as such, is dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp5090-૨૦10