1 W.P.No.8690/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8690 OF 2011. Sairabee W/o Nahimkhan Pathan, Age 45 years, Occ.Social Service, R/o Mauje Chikalthana (Bk.) Tq.Sailu, Dist. Parbhani. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Divisional Commissoiner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 2. The Additional Collector, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. 3. Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Sailu, Dist. Parbhani. 4. Hakeemkhan S/o Ashrafkhan Pathan, Age 45 years, Occ.Agri & Social Service, R/o Chikalthana (Bk.) Tq. Sailu, Dist.Parbhani. 5. Nivrutti S/o Laxman Budhwant, Age major, Occ.Agri & Social Service, R/o as above. 6. Pandurang S/o Balasaheb Jadhav, Age major, Occ.Agri & Social Service, R/o as above. 7. Praveen S/o Sadashiv Mahajan, Age major, Occ.Agri & Social Service, R/o as above. 8. Godavari W/o Kundlik Bhalerao, 2 W.P.No.8690/11 Age major, Occ.Agri & Social Service, R/o as above. 9. Rajeshwar S/o Kishanrao Jadhav, Age major, Occ.Agri & Social Service, R/o as above. 10. Kamalbai W/o Pralhad Budhwant, Age major, Occ.Agri & Social Service, R/o as above. 11. Ashok S/o Jijabhau Korde, Age major, Occ.Agri & Social Service, R/o as above. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.J.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.B.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.M.P.Kale, advocate for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 16.11.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chikalthana. The present Respondent Nos.4 to 9 moved requisition for calling the Special Meeting to discuss the motion of No Confidence against the petitioner. The meeting was held and the motion of No Confidence was passed by more 2/3rd majority i.e. six members 3 W.P.No.8690/11 out of nine voted in favour of the motion. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner moved the Collector, by filing the dispute. The Additional Collector, Parbhani, dismissed the said dispute. The petitioner being aggrieved thereby, filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice of the meeting was not at all served on the petitioner. The panchanama is shown to have been drawn affixing the notice at the residence of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner nor her husband were present in the house. The learned counsel contends that the said panchanama is on the face of it is illegal, in view of the fact that the Talathi himself has given a report to the Tahsildar that the notice is affixed as the petitioner or the members of the family had refused to accept the same. Such contradictory 4 W.P.No.8690/11 panchanama and the report is sufficient to negate the case of the Respondents that the notice has been served. The learned counsel contends that both the authorities have not considered this aspect. As the notice was not served, the petitioner did not know about the meeting, could not attend the meeting and participate in the debate. As the notice itself is not served, the motion itself stands vitiated. 4. Mr.Kale, learned counsel supports the order and submits that the panchanama has been drawn of affixing the notice and the said panchanama is signed by various persons. None of the persons who have signed the panchanama have filed any affidavit contending otherwise. According to the learned counsel both the authorities have considered this aspect and has dismissed the proceedings filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has lost the confidence of the majority of the house. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order, 5 W.P.No.8690/11 panchanama and the report. Both the authorities have considered and have held that the notice of the meeting has been affixed at the house of the petitioner. Panchanama is also drawn. Even the petitioner has nowhere pleaded in the dispute filed before the Collector that the petitioner was present in the house and the notice was not served. When there is no such positive case on behalf of the petitioner and there is no contra evidence to negate the panchanama on record, one can not come to the conclusion that the notice was not affixed, inter alia, was not served on the petitioner. Even, otherwise the petitioner has lost confidence of the majority of the house. By 2/3rd majority the motion has been passed. The motion was also taken up for debate. No illegality is found. 6. In light of the above, the Writ Petition being sans merit, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp8690.11 6 W.P.No.8690/11