1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 195 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1037 OF 2009 (Shrikrishna Digambar Jadhav vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. JULY 27, 2009. Heard Shri Gawande, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 to 8. The contention is that as the text proposed for motion of no confidence was not served upon the appellant, meeting in which no confidence motion was passed against him stands vitiated. Shri Gawande, learned counsel for the appellant points out that before the meeting began, written objection was raised by him but that was not considered. The Additional Collector in First Appeal and Divisional Commissioner in Second Appeal have also overlooked this aspect. He further states that the learned Single Judge in writ petition has found that as the petitioner has lost majority, the petition needed to be dismissed. Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 to 8 states that in various judgments this Court has 2 taken a view that prejudice must be pointed out and mere technical lapse is not sufficient in such matters. He places reliance upon the judgment in the case of Chandrakala vs. Kathalu, reported at 2009 (3) Mh. L.J. 55, Prabhawati vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2008 (2) Mh. L.J. 274, Smt. Annapurnabai Ajabrao vs. Smt. Annapurnabai Anandrao, reported at 1967 Mh. L.J. NOC 36 and Durgadas vs. Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, reported at 2003 (1) Mh. L.J. 420 in support of his contentions. Shri Gawande, learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Yamunabai vs. Sarubai Tukaram, reported at 2004 (2) Mh. L.J. 1004. We have perused all the judgments. We find that the appellant before us participated in the meeting of Gram Panchayat and he also effectively tried to defend himself in the matter. The possible prejudice which he expressed in his written objection lodged before commencement of meeting is not substantiated thereafter by pointing out how he could not effectively defend himself because the text of motion was not served upon the appellant. Shri Gawande, learned counsel has argued that out of total 7 members in Gram Panchayat, one seat is vacant and out of total six, who attended the meeting, four have voted against the appellant. He argues that 3 had the appellant been served with appropriate notice and text of motion, his defence would have been more effective and he could have easily convinced at least one member to vote in favour of him. We find that this argument is too technical and hypothetical to sustain. We find no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. LPA is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.