1 lpa333.11.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7690 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 394 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2011 Shri. Raosaheb Sampat Derle ....Appellant. Vs. The Tahsildar, Niphad & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Harshad M. Inamdar for the Appellant. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. K.S. Patil for Respondent Nos. 4 to 15. CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 17 OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. :- The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant does not even contend that the reasons that have been given by the learned Single Judge for rejecting his petition are wrong. He submits that he should be permitted to argue a point which admittedly was not argued by him before the learned Single Judge. Relying on the Judgment of a 2 lpa333.11.sxw ssm Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Ranga Reddi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the learned counsel submits that if point goes to the root of the matter, it can be permitted to be argued in the Letters Patent Appeal though it was not argued before the learned Single Judge. Perusal of the record, however, shows that the contention that while passing the Motion of No Confidence, provisions of Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Punchayat (Meetings) Rules, 1959 were not followed was argued before the learned Single Judge on 19 September 2011 as one of the points and the learned Single Judge mentioned that in his order and issued notice. On the returnable date when the matter was heard for admission, this contention however was given up and was not argued before the learned Single Judge. Obviously, therefore, as the contention was given up before the learned Single Judge, it cannot be permitted to be argued in the Letters Patent Appeal. The Appeal is therefore, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. 2 Civil Application No. 394 of 2011 is also disposed of. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)