wp3869­11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3869 OF 2011 Bapu Murlidhar Deore .. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.M.S.Karnik for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20th JUNE 2011. P.C.: 1] The only submission of Mr.Karnik appearing for petitioner is that Annexure A to this petition does not satisfy the requirement of form prescibed below Rules 2 to 4 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Presiding Authorities (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1962. 2] He submits that the rules postulates that the date and place ought to be mentioned or else the notice is not in the wp3869­11.doc 2 form prescribed. The form is, therefore, mandatory. In such circumstances, the no confidence motion which was moved against the petitioner on 5th May 2011 being not in accordance with law, there was no obligation to convene the meeting in pursuance thereof. 3] This Court did not grant any ad-interim protection in the order passed on 13th May 2011 and, therefore, a meeting was held, no confidence motion was passed and even re- elections have been held. 4] No useful purpose will be served by going into the submissions of Mr.Karnik. Even otherwise, what the Rules prescribe is a requisite form for calling and/or convening meeting to consider No Confidence Motion. Reliance is placed upon a judgement of this Court in which it was held that the requirement is mandatory. 5] Having carefully perused the Rules and the Annexure wp3869­11.doc 3 A to the present petition, it is seen that it is not the case of Mr.Karnik that the name of the persons requisitioning the meeting are absent. The names and signatures both are very much there. Only thing not mentioned is date and place. However, it is clear that the petitioner was at relevant time Sabhapati of Davale Panchayat Samiti. Therefore, he is aware that the requisition is with regard to convening a meeting to pass no confidence motion against the petitioner. Merely not mentioning the name is not fatal in the facts peculiar to this case. The office of Collector Nashik under the hand of collector forwarded the notice convening the meeting to the petitioner and that is also not in dispute. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)