1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 212 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1381 OF 2009 (Prabhulal Jivanlal Patel vs.The Commissioner & Ors.) AND LPA NO. 232 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1513 OF 2009 (Shriram Pandurang Shirsat & Anr. vs. The Additional Commissioner & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. JUNE 15, 2009. Heard Shri Jagtap, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Joshi, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 13 and Shri Ahirkar, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3. The issue involved in the present LPAs being similar, we are passing this common order. Appellant No.1 in LPA No. 212 of 2009 is the Sarpanch against whom the motion of No Confidence is passed by 10 members in a Gram Panchayat out of 13 members. The appellants in LPA No. 232 of 2009 are the members of the Gram Panchayat. These LPS are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5th May 2009. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition against 2 No Confidence motion passed by the Tahsildar, Akola, against the Sarpanch i.e. appellant No. LPA No. 212 of 2009 and Respondent No.14 in LPA No. 232 of 2009. 10 out of 13 members of the Gram Panchayat voted against the appellant. The principal contention raised before us is that the learned Single Judge having perused the record and observed that the notice of No Confidence was served on the son of appellant No.2 i.e. Surendra Shahadeo Bhatkule and not on said petitioner, it ought to have held that there was no service of notice on the appellant and, therefore, the confidence motion was not validly passed. We have considered the matter at length and we find that though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants is correct that notice of no confidence cannot be treated validly served when it was served on another family member such as minor son, we find that the facts of present case do not justify interference. It is an admitted fact that in spite of detailed pleadings filed, there was not even hit of this contention on behalf of he petitioner that the notice was served on the minor son and therefore not valid. In fact, the pleading was to the contrary as follows: “The notice of no confidence motion meeting dated 1.1.2009 was never served to this appellants nor his family members as per Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958.” Thus, there is no foundation for the case 3 aruged before the learned Single Judge and now sought to be argued in appeal. The nature of pleading made earlier do not justify permitting the appellant to raise a contention for the first time in a writ petition without any pleadings having been made or evidence led. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere in the present LPAs. The same are dismissed. At this stage, Shri Jagtap, learned counsel for the appellant seeks protection on the ground that he has been protected by this Court through out before the learned Single Judge. In these circumstances, we permit the appellant in LPA No. 212 of 2009 to hold the post of Sarpanch for a period of four weeks from today on the same terms and restrictions as before. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.