1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9748 OF 2009 Shailaja Uday Dongare .. Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr .. Respondents Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade, i/b Mr Shashank Mangale, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Abhay D Parab i/b Miss Rutuja R.Likare, for respondent no.5. Ms.Neha Bhide, AGP, for Respondent nos 1 to 3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 27/11/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The orders passed by the authorities below in the proceedings arising from no confidence motion passed against the petitioner-Sarpanch by the Gram Panchayat, Sadawali, are challenged in the present writ petition. Mr,Bhadbhade, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised two contentions. Firstly, he submitted that no confidence motion was brought against the petitioner within less then one year from the date of Special meeting of the Panchayat called earlier for this purpose. The motion of no confidence was moved earlier on 31.7.2008. And secondly, he submitted that copies of notice, as contemplated under rule 2(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and T 2 Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, were not sent to the Zilla Parishad, the Panchayat Samiti, the Collector and the Commissioner. 3. I have perused the impugned orders and other material placed before the court. It is true that the notice calling a special meeting on 12.8.2009 for considering a motion of no confidence shows the date 7.8.2008. The year 2008 mentioned on the notice, however, in my opinion, is a topographical error. It is clear from the endorsement made by concerned authority on the said notice that it was given on 7.8.2009 and not on 7.8.2008, as tried to be contended by the petitioner. The petitioner is trying to take advantage of the typographical error in mentioning the year. The notice, contemplated by the provisions of section 35 of the earlier special meeting, was given on 31.7.2008, whereas the date of impugned notice is 12.8.2009. The earlier attempt, made in pursuance of the notice dated 7.8.2009 to pass no confidence motion, had failed. The impugned motion has, however, been carried by majority on 12.8.2009, i.e. After more than a year from 31.7.2008. Thus, I do not find any merit in the first submission. Insofar as the second submission is concerned, the petitioner has not placed any material on record in support thereof, nor has he stated in the petition that he raised such contention and it was not 3 considered by the authorities below. In the circumstances, I find no substance in the writ petition. The petition is dismissed. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)