1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.156 of 2008. [Sau. Nandatai Dattatraya Paraskar] Vs. [The Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others] ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S. D. Chopde Advocate for the petitioner. Coram: A. H. JOSHI, J. Dated: 15th January 2008. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Amravati dismissing the petitioner's appeal. 2. The Core question is whether notice was duly served on the petitioner. 3. It is seen that the procedure for service of notice of motion of no confidence does not comprehend the possibility of addressee being not available and notice being required to be re-considered. Therefore, the mode 2 of service as prescribed in rules has been adopted, and is on facts adopted in this case. 4. No illegality is shown in the mode adopted adopted for service. 5. Petitioner's assertion on facts is that the petitioner did not know, is a contention unavailable to the petitioner. 6. The impugned Judgment, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality. 7. Petition has no merit. It is dismissed. JUDGE Sbm