1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 394 OF 2010 (Sachin W. Thakare & Ors. vs. Subhash Manikrao Lawale & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 10, 2010. Heard Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Chopde, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Thakare, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 to 5. The meeting of no confidence was held on 29.06.2009 and in it, Respondent No. 1 was removed from the post of Sarpanch. His dispute before the Additional Collector was rejected on 31.08.2009. The Additional Commissioner in further appeal accepted his contention that notice was not served as required by Rule 7 of Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as Rules) and hence has quashed the no confidence resolution. Shri Joshi, learned counsel argues that case of Respondent No.1 was that notice was served upon his minor son Pratik, who was only 14 years old. He states that it was never his case that there was no adult male member in the family or then the notice has been wrongly pasted on the door of his residential house. He has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this 2 Court in the case of Nimba Rajaram vs. Collector, Jalgaon, reported at 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 204, to urge that when the petitioner has lost majority, the technical objections of present nature should not be resorted to, to defeat that verdict. The judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of Prabhawati vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 274, taking same view is also pressed into service. Shri Chopde, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as also Shri Thakare, learned AGP support the impugned order. Shri Chopde, learned counsel argues that the signature of minor son Pratik was obtained and the other panchas who have allegedly witnessed the pasting of notice have categorically in cross examination accepted that the notice was not pasted in their presence. The provisions of above mentioned Rule 7 of the Rules contemplate service of notice personally upon the Sarpanch and in his absence upon adult male member of his family. If such adult male member is not available in the house then only service by pasting on front door of residential house is permitted. The panchnama produced on record does not reveal absence of any adult male member in the family. It shows that as Respondent No.1 was found absent, the notice came to be pasted on front door of his residence. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nimba Rajaram vs. Collector, Jalgaon, (supra), 3 considers the facts in which the panchnama prepared at the time of such service specifically recorded that the Sarpanch Vikram had gone out of station and when notice was tried to be served upon his family members, it was refused hence it was pasted on his residence in presence of panchas. This panchnama, therefore, meets the requirement of Rule 7 of the Rules. The other observations made by Division Bench show that if during conduct of meeting there are any irregularities, the same cannot be used to defeat the majority. This judgment has been followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Prabhawati vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). As here, the panchnama does not meet the requirement of Rule 7 of the Rules, the service by fixing the notice on the front door of residence, cannot be held as valid service. Judgment of this Court in Bhika Narayan Gangurde vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2002 (1) Bom. C.R. 186, squarely applies to present facts. Moreover, it is apparent that there is some improvement in the matter because the signature of minor son Pratik has been obtained by the officers serving the notice. In view of these facts, the appreciation of controversy by the appellate Court cannot be labeled as erroneous or perverse. No case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.