(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8532 OF 2009 Suresh s/o. Arjun Patil, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Agriculture, at present Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, .. Petitioner Sundarpatti, R/o. Sundarpatti, (Original Taluka : Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. applicant) versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Additional Commissioner, .. Respondents Nashik Division, Nashik, (Original and 10 Others. opponents) .......................... Mr. M.K. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4. Mr. Santosh R. Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.7, caveator. .......................... (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent orders passed by the learned Additional Collector, Jalgaon, dated 20th August 2009, thereby dismissing the dispute filed by the present petitioner, and the order passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, dated 20th November 2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner, thereby confirming the "no confidence motion" passed by the Sundarpatti (Taluka : Amalner, District : Jalgaon), in its resolution dated 8th July 2009. 2. Mr. M.K. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the notice issued was not in the prescribed format. He further submits that against the two members, proceedings for disqualification were pending and, as such, they could not have participated in the meeting. 3. Mr. S.R. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 7, caveator, supports the impugned orders. 4. In so far as the ground regarding two members being not entitled to participate in the meeting is concerned, admittedly, only (3) proceedings are pending and no orders of disqualification, on the date on which "no confidence motion" was passed, were issued against them. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the said contention. 5. In so far as rest of the grounds are concerned, in the light of the view taken by this court, in the case of Prabhawati Vijaykumar Khivsara Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2008(2) Mh.L.J. 274), the "no confidence motion" which has been passed by a requisite majority, need not be interfered on technical ground. 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8532