FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4544 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO.4548 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s or Court’s or Judge’s orders directions & Registrar’s orders -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.G.S. Godbole with Mr.P.M. Arjunwadkar for the petitioner. Mr.P.M. Gore for respondent Nos.1 to 8. Mr.S.N. Patil, AGP for State. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 26TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. 1. These two writ petitions are filed by the Sarpanch & Upsarpanch of Village Chimbli, Taluka Peth, District Pune to challenge the order passed by the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune whereby the appeal as well as revision filed by the petitioners against the no confidence motion has been dismissed. 2. In the present case, pursuant to the notice of no confidence dated 18-12-2007, a meeting was called by the Tahsildar and in the meeting held on 24-12-2007, no confidence motion was passed against the petitioners. Disputes filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the Collector, Pune. Further appeals filed by the petitioners were also dismissed by the Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. Challenging the aforesaid orders, these two writ petitions are filed. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that requisite copies of no confidence motion were not supllied along with the notice and all the mandatory provisions of Bombay Village Panchayat, Sarpanch & Upsarpanch (No confidence motion) Rules, 1975 have not been followed and, therefore, the resolutions passed are not sustainable. 4. This Court in the case of Durgadas Ukhaji More & Others Vs. Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik & Others reported in 2003 (1) Mah.L.J. 420 has held that the form of notice prescribed by Rule 2(2) is directory & not mandatory. 5. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the authorities below that furnishing copies of the notice are directory and not mandatory cannot be faulted. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.