1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 94 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2863 OF 2008 (Vilas Bajirao Chaudhary 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 Mandpe, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3. The motion of no confidence carried by majority of 6 against Nil was challenged by the petitioner Upsarpanch in statutory appeal before the Additional Collector, Amravati. That appeal was dismissed on 13.2.2008 and then further appeal under Section 35(3)(C) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, before the Additional Commissioner, was also dismissed on 16.6.2008. Writ Petition No. 2863 of 2008 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 16.2.2009. Shri Gawande, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dinkarrao vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 1997 (3) Mh. L.J. 129, to state that there as the text of motion of no confidence was not accompanying the notice of meeting, the 2 Division Bench has found notice convening the meeting itself to be vitiated. He argues that the facts in present matter are identical and the proposed motion of no confidence was not accompanying the text of notice of meeting served upon the present appellant. The perusal of Division Bench judgment relied upon by Shri Gawande shows that there the petition was filed immediately after the service of notice of no confidence motion and it considers the provisions of Rule 57A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, in the light of Section 73-ID of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Here, the notice of meeting was duly served upon the present appellant, still he did not appear in the meeting and did not raise the issue in the meeting where immediate steps to find out truth or for rectification could have been taken. He permitted the meeting to be held and then also availed all statutory remedies. The learned Single Judge has considered said ruling and distinguished it. Considering the facts of present matter, we are not inclined to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal. LPA is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.