1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6456 OF 2005 Shri Ashok Baburao Vade : Petitioner V/s. Smt.Ujwala Vishwanath Patil & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.K.N.Kore for the petitioner. Mr.V.A.Gangal for the respondent nos.1 to 6. Mr.D.A.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent no.9. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. September 29, 2005. P.C.: 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Gangal, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6 and Mr.Patil, the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent no.9, appear and waive service of rule. Heard by consent. 2. This is a petition by a person against whom a notice of no-confidence has been passed by the Gram Panchayat, 2 Pam, in his capacity as the Sarpanch. The petitioner has impugned the order of the Addl. Commissioner, Konkan Division, upholding the order of the Addl. Collector upholding the no-confidence motion. 3. The principal contention raised by Mr.Kore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the notice of no-confidence was not served upon the petitioner in accordance with rule 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was served with the notice of the meeting, but that was not in accordance with the form prescribed in the Rules which require the statement of reasons. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, I am of view that there is no merit in this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is pointed out by Mr.Gangal, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6, that the petitioner did not raise any such objection in the meeting itself, the proceedings of which are annexed. 5. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Collector has, upon a perusal of the proceedings, rendered a 3 specific finding that the notice of the proposed no-confidence was served on the petitioner in accordance with the Rules vide the Addl. Collector’s order dated 17.6.2005. Similarly, the learned Addl. Commissioner has given a finding that the notice of the meeting was served on all the parties, including the petitioner. It was served on the petitioner on 10.5.2005 and his signature was taken on the notice. Therefore, the Addl. Commissioner has rejected the petitioner’s contention. The Addl. Commissioner has observed that the entire record shows that the meeting was held at the scheduled time, scheduled place and on the scheduled date. All the members were given an opportunity to discuss and the appellant was given an opportunity to defend himself. The no-confidence motion has been passed against the petitioner by 6 : 1 votes. Having regard to the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below, I am of view that there is no perversity. In any case, such a finding of fact is not liable to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. Accordingly, the rule stands discharged. S.A. BOBDE, J.