1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4472 of 2011 Lalchand Lopa Mawaskar ..VS.. Addl. Commissioner, Amravati and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.V. Gawande, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Pathan, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 12 th September, 2011. Heard. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati on 22nd August, 2011 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the Additional Collector, Amravati on 18.7.2011. The petitioner has challenged the resolution of ‘No Confidence Motion’ passed against the petitioner in the special meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Shirpur, on 6.5.2011 on the ground that the motion was not proposed or seconded in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules. According to the petitioner, the resolution is liable to be set aside on this short ground. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and on perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the authorities were justified in 2 dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner challenging the 'No Confidence Motion' passed against the petitioner on 6.5.2011. The No Confidence Motion passed against the petitioner cannot be set aside solely on the ground that the motion was not proposed or seconded in the special meeting unless the petitioner shows as to what prejudice was caused to the petitioner because the motion was not proposed or seconded. On a perusal of the minutes of the special meeting, annexed to the petition, it appears that there was an effective discussion in regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner was also heard in the matter at the special meeting. After the members were heard, seven members voted in favour of the motion and the motion was passed with two-third majority. The resolution was then read at the meeting and the minutes recite that none of the members had any complaint in regard to the same. Thus, it appears that due procedure prescribed by law was followed at the special meeting and in such circumstances the petitioner cannot effectively challenge the 'No Confidence Motion' merely because it was not proposed or seconded in the special meeting. In similar circumstances, it has been observed by this court in the judgment dated 25th of July, 2011 in a bunch of writ petitions bearing writ petition no.157 of 2011 and others that no prejudice was caused to the petitioners therein and there was substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules. Similar view has been reiterated in the unreported order of this court dated 10th of August, 2011 in W.P. No. 3862/11 as this court had rejected a similar 3 contention of the petitioner in that case on the ground that it was a highly technical view and would not impinge upon the no confidence motion passed against the petitioners therein. The petitioner cannot seek any assistance from the view expressed by the Full Bench in the judgment reported in 2011(3) Mh.L.J. 500 (Viswas Pandurang Mokal Vs. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu and others)as though this court has observed in the said decision that the provisions of Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules would apply to the meeting held for considering the No Confidence Motion' against the Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch, the full bench held that it was not deciding the question as to what would be the consequences in relation to the validity or otherwise of a motion of no confidence being passed against the Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch in violation or without following the Meeting Rules. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan