1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR L. P. A. No. 423/2011 in W. P. No. 4707/2011 Abhiman Dinaji Bhonde ..vs.. The Learned Divl. Commissioner, Nagpur Dn. & ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Trupti Udeshi, Advocate h/f Mr. A. H. Lohiya, Advocate for appellant. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & M. N. GILANI, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 4, 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Two points are raised on behalf of the appellant. Firstly, the learned Single Judge after observing that the order of the learned Commissioner was cryptic, ought to have directed remand so that elaborate reasons could be given. We find from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere on the ground that the Commissioner has stated that there was non compliance of Rule 17 and 18 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. According to the learned Single Judge, though in a cryptic manner, the Commissioner’s order gives sufficient indication of the reason why the Commissioner has taken this view. This contention has, therefore, no merit. 2 2. The second contention is that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that none of the authorities below have considered the fact that the notices were not issued and served on the two members of the Gram Panchayat. However, from the record, it appears that the contention was not that the notices were not issued and served on the two members but the throughout the contention has been that the two members did not attend because they were not allowed to attend. There is no error committed by the learned Single Judge in refusing to interfere on this ground since the learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant did not raise a plea that two members were not served with the notice. 3. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE kahale