SABHAJEET YADAV, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The order which I propose to pass in the writ petition, I need not to hear learned Counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17. 12. 2008 passed by Addl. District Judge, Mathura in Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1988 (Thakur Raghunath Ji Maharaj v. Gaon Sabha, Sakeetra), whereby the application moved by the pe titioner that the private Counsel has been engaged on behalf of Gaon Sabha without prior approval of the Pradhan, can not conduct the proceeding on behalf of Gaon Sabha, has been rejected. 4. I have considered the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. In support of his submission learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court in Babu Ram Verma v. Sub-Divisional Officer and others, 1996 (Suppl.) RD 12. In my consid ered opinion, the aforesaid decision is dis tinguishable on the facts and the peti tioners right cannot be held to be impaired because of engaging other Counsel of Gaon Sabha without any prior approval of the District Magistrate. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is mis conceived and liable to be dismissed. Ac cordingly the same is hereby dismissed. Petition Dismissed. .