1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4859/2011 (SUDHABAI SIDDHAM DADMAL VERSUS THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.M. Kadukar, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Rashi Deshpande, counsel for the R-1 to 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 22 , 2011 . The no confidence motion passed against the petitioner is challenged by the petitioner on mainly two grounds. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the no confidence motion is liable to be set aside on the ground that the motion was not proposed and seconded before it was put to vote and discussed in the meeting. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner is vitiated as Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules has not been followed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in 2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 497 (Vijay Ramchandra Katkar Versus Group Gram Panchayat, Pali & others) in this regard. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the members of the panchayat have maliciously moved the no confidence motion against the petitioner and the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the meeting were incorrect. 2 The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the no confidence motion gets vitiated as the no confidence motion was not proposed or seconded before it was moved in the meeting, is liable to be rejected as this ground is not specifically raised by the petitioner in the application filed before the Additional Collector and, hence, the respondents did not have any opportunity to prove whether the motion was proposed and seconded before it was put to vote. Secondly, the petitioner has not pointed out any prejudice to the petitioner because the no confidence motion was not proposed or seconded in the special meeting. The judgment reported in 2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 497 (Vijay Ramchandra Katkar Versus Group Gram Panchayat, Pali & others) cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner since the petitioner had not raised the said ground specifically before the first authority. It would be useful to consider the unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.167/2011 & others dated 26.07.2011, wherein it is observed that if the requirement of Rule 17 is not a mandate but, a matter of procedure, then unless serious prejudice for want of compliance thereof is demonstrated, the motion cannot be said to be invalid and illegal nor could any deficiency be found in the conduct of the meeting. Since in that case, no prejudice had been demonstrated for want of compliance of said procedural aspect, the contentions of the petitioners therein in regard to the non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 17 were rejected. It is reiterated in the order dated 10.08.2011 in Writ Petition No.3862/2011 that the plea raised by the petitioner therein that there was no proposer or seconder to the said resolution and, hence, the 3 same was vitiated, was a highly technical view and would not impinge upon the no confidence motion passed against him. The second submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the members had maliciously moved the motion against the petitioner on false allegations, is also liable to be rejected as it can be observed from the minutes of the meeting that there were serious charges against the petitioner and the no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner after granting an opportunity to the petitioner for having her say. The findings recorded by both the authorities are pure findings of facts, which call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE