1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.228 OF 2009. IN WRIT PETITION NO.1690 OF 2008 (D). SUNIL S/O BHIMRAO YAWALE. VS. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S. D. Chopde, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S. G. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents no.6 & 7. Coram : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 10th AUGUST, 2009. 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Chopde for the appellant, Advocate Mr. Joshi, for respondents no.6 & 7, and learned AGP Mrs. K. Joshi for the respondents no.1 to 3. 2. The contention is that the respondent 2 no.11 who is a Member of Gram Panchayat came up with a specific case that the notice of no confidence motion was not served on her, and the application for sending the said notice to Hand Writing Expert was not decided. 3. Reliance is being placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2004(4) Mh.L.J, Ashok Krishnakant vs. State of Maharashtra 197 to contend that the each member of Gram Panchayat has right to speak and participate in such a meeting and AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2990, Hakam Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. to show that when the proceedings are disposed of without deciding such application for sending the document to Hand Writing Expert, the orders are vitiated. 4. Advocate Shri Joshi submitted that total members were 9 and two members i.e. present appellant (Sarpanch) and the respondent no.11 were absent. Out of 7 members 3 who were present, 6 members have voted in favour of the motion, while one member only opposed the motion. He contends that even if the appellant and the respondent no.11 are presumed to be present, they would have have opposed the resolution and hence, the resolution would have been carried out by majority of 6 as against 3 which meets the requirement of Section 35 (3) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act. 5. It is to be noted that service upon the present appellant itself is held to be valid by all authorities including the learned Single Judge. The contention before us is in relation to service only upon Respondent No. 11. The Respondent No.11 has not filed any proceeding thereafter. 6. In the circumstances, it is clear that when the motion is required to be passed with majority of not less than 2/3rd, the present facts do not call for any interference either 4 in exercise of writ jurisdiction or Letters Patent Appeal. 7. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/