(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 3863 of 2009 Maharu Bhurekha Tadvi, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Farmer, R/o. Lohara, Taluka : Raver, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus The Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik, District : Nasik, and 12 Others. .. Respondents. .................. W I T H Writ Petition No. 3874 of 2009 Mamraj s/o. Hira Pawar, Age : 39 years, Occupation : Farmer, R/o. Lohara, Taluka : Raver, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner versus The Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik, District : Nasik, and 12 Others. .. Respondents. .................. (2) Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioners in both petitions. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 in both petitions. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 25TH JUNE 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of Writ Petition No. 3863/2009, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st June 2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik, in Grampanchayat Appeal No. 33/2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner and confirming the order dated 9th March 2009, passed by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon, in Grampanchayat Dispute Application No. 8/2009, thereby dismissing the application filed by the present petitioner challenging the "no confidence motion" passed in the meeting dated 3rd February 2009. 2. By way of Writ Petition No. 3874/2009, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st June 2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik, in Grampanchayat Appeal No. 34/2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner and confirming the order dated 9th March 2009, passed by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon, in Grampanchayat Dispute Application No. 9/2009, thereby dismissing the application filed by the present (3) petitioner challenging the "no confidence motion" passed in the meeting dated 3rd February 2009. 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3863/2009 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3874/2009 were working as Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, Group Grampanchayat, Lohara (Taluka : Raver, District : Jalgaon), respectively. A notice of "no confidence motion" was given to Tahsildar by 9 members. Accordingly, the Tahsildar convened meeting for "no confidence motion" on 3rd February 2009. In the said meeting, in a Grampanchayat consisting of 13 members, "no confidence motion' was passed by a majority of ten against three. Challenge thereto was rejected by the Additional Collector, so also, by the Additional Commissioner. Hence, the present petitions. 4. Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Tahsildar had not followed the requirement under the rules in conducting the meeting and as such, the "no confidence motion" stands vitiated. 5. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that all 13 members of the Grampanchayat, including the present petitioners, were present in the meeting. In the said meeting, motion of "no confidence" was passed by a majority of ten against three. Since the present petitioners were themselves present in the meeting, no prejudice could have been caused to them by non-compliance of any of the compliances. 6. The Apex Court, in the case of K. Narasimhiah Vs. H.C. Singri Gowda and others [AIR 1966 SC 330], has held that unless (4) prejudice could be said to have been caused on account of procedural requirement, the court should not interfere in the motion of no confidence. 7. In that view of the matter, no perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the authorities below, so as to warrant interference in concurrent findings of fact, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Petitions are, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp3863