FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7511 OF 2011 "Bharat Bhagwantrao Honrao Vs. Sanjay T. Deshmukh and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. Umakant K. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondents. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the notice of motion of no confidence dated 14.9.2011, by which the no confidence motion has been passed against the petitioner by a majority of 4:2. 2] It is the contention of the petitioner that the notice as required under Rule 2 and Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Presiding Authorities (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1962, was not given to the petitioner and as such, the entire meeting is vitiated by non-compliance with the mandatory provisions. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of “Bhagwan Shankar Sanap Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in 1996(1) Mh.L.J. 705. 3] It is the basic contention of the petitioner that had the FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7511 OF 2011 "Bharat Bhagwantrao Honrao Vs. Sanjay T. Deshmukh and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 names of the persons who were moving the resolution been disclosed to him, he would have made efforts to convince the members before the meeting was held and in all probabilities, ensured that the no confidence motion is not passed against him. 4] No doubt, Rule (2) of the aforesaid rules, requires that the requisition shall be accompanied by the text of the motion proposed to be moved specifying therein the grounds on which the proposed motion is moved and the names of the councilors who have moved the motion. Undisputedly, the requisition which is given to the Collector by respondent Nos. 1 to 4, is accompanied by the text of the motion proposed to be moved. The requisition also shows the names of the persons, who have proposed the no confidence motion. Undisputedly, the notice dated 29th August, 2011, convening the meeting has been received by the petitioner on 29th August, 2011, itself. Between 29th August, 2011 to 14th September, 2011, there was almost a period of 15 days. If it is the contention of the petitioner, that he had not received a copy of the requisition and copy of proposed motion alongwith notice, he could have very well applied to the Collector, within these 14 days and sought a copy thereof. Not only this, but, the petitioner has even participated in the meeting dated 14.9.2011. Perusal of the minutes would reveal that the FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7511 OF 2011 "Bharat Bhagwantrao Honrao Vs. Sanjay T. Deshmukh and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 petitioner had also submitted his views in the said meeting. It can thus clearly be seen that the no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the petitioner. If the contention of the petitioner that, had he known about the names of the persons, who have proposed the motion of no confidence, he would have persuaded them, is to be accepted, he could have done so by his oral speech even in the meeting itself and could have convinced the members, who were admittedly present in the meeting. 5] Undisputedly, the majority of the members of the Panchayat Samiti do not want the present petitioner to continue as the Vice President of the Panchayat Samiti. No doubt, reliance placed by the learned counsel, on the judgment of the Division Bench in the matter cited supra is well placed, however, it appears that the learned Judges have not noticed the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of “L. Narsimhan Vs. Dharwad Municipal Council” reported in AIR 1966 SC 330, wherein, the Apex Court has clearly held that in matters of no confidence, what is pertinent is the prejudice that is caused to the petitioner. It has been held that if by non compliance of any of the statutory rules, no prejudice is caused to the person against whom the no confidence motion is passed, such a rule has to be held to be directory and not mandatory. In that view of the matter, we find FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7511 OF 2011 "Bharat Bhagwantrao Honrao Vs. Sanjay T. Deshmukh and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 4 that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, which does not take into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court, would not be of any assistance to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner having participated in the meeting, given an opportunity to put forth his views, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to him by non compliance of the statutory rules. 6] In that view of the matter, we do not find that a case is made out for interference in our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed . [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-