1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3497 of 2011 Babarao Karnu Purke ..VS.. The Additional Commissioner & Others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.L. Khapre, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. P.V. Bhoyar, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. H.N. Potbhare, Adv. for respondent nos. 4 to 8 & 10 to 17 Mr. S.Z. Sonbhadre adv. for respondent no. 5 & 9. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 16 th September, 2011. Heard. Both the authorities have concurrently held that the no confidence motion was validly passed against the petitioner by more than two-third majority and the application and the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the same were liable to be dismissed. 2] The only ground on which the petitioner challenges the no confidence motion passed is that the same was not proposed or seconded in the meeting dated 01.04.2011 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Rule 39 of the Meeting Rules, the resolution could not have been discussed and the minutes could not have been recorded unless the motion was proposed and seconded in the meeting. 3] On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the minutes of the meeting dated 01.04.2011, it appears that 17 members of the Gram Panchayat were present at the meeting. The 2 notice of the meeting dated 25.03.2011 levelled some charges against the petitioner and they were recorded in the minutes. It is then observed in the minutes that one of the members by name Shri K.K. Dohe spoke about some of the charges and the other member Shri P. B. Ponamwar seconded the same. After this was done, the petitioner, who was present at the meeting, spoke in the meeting denying the charges levelled against him and put forth his explanation on the charges. After there was effective discussion in the meeting, it appears from the minutes that the voting took place by raising hands and 14 members out of the 17 members present in the meeting voted in favour of the resolution. Hence, it appears from a perusal of the minutes of the meeting that there was an effective discussion on the subject for which the meeting was called on 01.04.2011. The petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing and the other members present in the meeting also spoke on the subject. Hence, this is a case where there was an effective discussion in the special meeting dated 01.04.2011 and the petitioner who was noticed about the charges was given a fair opportunity of hearing. In this background, the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner cannot be vitiated solely on the technical ground that the motion was not proposed or seconded as required by the provisions of Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the provisions of Rule 39 of the Meeting Rules also as the petitioner has not pointed out as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner because of the non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules. In fact, on a perusal of the minutes, it is clear that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and it is a case where the petitioner was duly served, subject of the meeting was duly discussed and the petitioner was also granted a fair and reasonable opportunity of having his say on the subject. In similar set of facts, it has been 3 observed by this court in the judgment dated 26.07.2011 in a bunch of writ petitions bearing W.P. no. 157/2011 and others that the proceedings in the meeting or the motion itself could not be vitiated merely because the motion was not moved and seconded. The court observed that merely because Rule 17 has not been adhered to, the motion cannot be invalidated and the rule cannot be stretched to such an extent as would render section 35 and the substantive subsections thereof nugatory. The court went on to add that by a mere non- compliance of some of the rules and Rule 17, it cannot be said that in all cases the motion was not moved and carried out at all. A similar view had been expressed by this court in the order dated 10th of August, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 3862/2011 wherein, this court observed that ultimately the right to continue as a Sarpanch has to be decided on the floor of the house and the petitioner in that case had unfortunately failed in the said test. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the orders passed by the authorities are not just and proper and the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan