(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 242 OF 2011 Smt. Kamalbai w/o. Kisan Arke, Age : 36 years, Occupation : Household & Sarpanch, R/o. Grampanchayat Kothari [Che], Taluka : Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, and 3 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. G.R. Ingole, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14TH JANUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. The contention is, as Gramsevak did not cooperate, some meetings could not be held and this was sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Mr. G.R. Ingole, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has further relied upon judgment of this Court, in the case of Pratibha Sanjay Hulle Vs. Additional Collector & others (2010(4) Bom.C.R. 700), to urge that here also, the complaint is vague. 2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have perused the impugned order. The grievance, that as complaint is vague, the petitioner is not in a position effectively to defend himself, was never raised before the Additional Collector. On the contrary, a reply trying to explain the circumstances has been placed on record. The reply in paragraph 3 states that though Gramsevak was instructed time and again to conduct the meetings, but she avoided and the record of Grampanchayat were not handed over. 3. Perusal of the judgment in the case of Pratibha Sanjay Hulle (supra), and particularly paragraph 4, would reveal that the petitioner therein made a grievance that the petitioner (3) was not served with proper notice of enquiry which was conducted and even copy of complaint was not served upon her. That grievance has been looked into in this background. The said judgment has, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case. 4. The Additional Collector has considered the material and found that the petitioner had grievance against the then Gramsevak Smt. Shembolikar. In paragraph 7, the authority has found that there were two other Gramsevaks and against them, the petitioner had no grievance. Even during their regime, meetings have not been held. I do not find these findings are erroneous or perverse. 5. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in this jurisdiction. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp242