1 wp2991.01.odt FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2991/2009 ( Sou. Hansatai Khobragade ..V/s.. The Collector, Bhandara & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Anand Parchure, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.W. Sambre, G.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. A.Y. Kapgate, counsel for respondent no.2. Mr. S.S. Jagtap & Mr. S.S. Godbole, counsel for respondent no.3. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS JJ. DATE : 28 th JANUARY , 2010 . The petitioner has challenged the the impugned resolution dated 13/7/2009 passed under section 87 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 by the Zilla Parishad Bhandara declaring that the petitioner has lost the confidence of the House as Chairman and is liable to be removed. A Special Meeting was convened on 12th of July 2009 at 1 p.m. on the requisition of one Rajkumar Meshram and 38 other members in the office of the Collector disclosing no confidence against the petitioner. The meeting was attended by 45 members. The petitioner was not present in the said meeting. In the meeting a resolution was passed unanimously by 45 to 0 members. The petitioner therefore, was held to have lost the confidence of the 2 wp2991.01.odt House. Subsequently, the elections to the post of Chairman, Social Welfare Committee have also been held and new Chairman of the Social Welfare Committee has been appointed. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Parchure, the learned counsel for petitioner, is that the notice of the special meeting was not served on the petitioner as required by rule 5 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad (Conduct of Business) Rules 1964. The said rule reads as under - Notice of meeting. - Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 111 - (a) the Secretary shall, under the orders of the (President) cause a notice convening an ordinary or special meeting of the Zilla Parishad to be prepared in Form A; (b) the notice of every meeting [not being a meeting referred to in clause (c)] may be delivered by hand or [sent by post under a certificate of posting]; (c) the notice of any meeting adjourned (not being a meeting adjourned for want of a quorum) shall be pasted on the notice board of the office of the Zilla Parishad and it shall be deemed sufficient notice of the adjourned meeting.” According to the petitioner, the notice of the meeting ought to have been delivered in the hand of the petitioner and that not having been done there was no service of the notice. The respondents have contended 3 wp2991.01.odt that the petitioner was duly served by effecting service of the notice on the Personal Assistant to the petitioner who has sworn affidavit to the effect that he personally delivered the notice to the petitioner. Thus according to the respondent – Zilla Parisahd it is a good service as contemplated by the Rules. It may be noted that Clause (B) provides that “notice “may be delivered by hand or [sent by post under a certificate of posting]”. A plain reading of the Clause suggests that the mode of delivery should be by hand and not that the delivery should be into the hands of the noticee. Thus service by hand must be taken to have been effected as when there is delivery of the notice on someone legitimately representing him such as an adult male member of the family or a Personal Assistant in the present case apart from the petitioner himself. We are fortified in the construction of the Rule by the other mode of delivery provided by the Rules i.e. by post under certificate of posting and introduced by an amendment. The provision suggests that it is sufficient to send the notice under the certificate of posting which is well known not to require an acknowledgment by the recipient. In the present case we have seen the documents written by the Personal Assistant to the petitioner i.e. an affidavit dated 22/7/2009. The other document is a letter dated 23/7/2009. In the affidavit of the Personal Assistant he received the notice in question addressed to the petitioner and handed over the notice on the same day i.e. on 7/6/2009 after recording the receipt in the register at Inward Entry No.345/2009. He has further stated that 4 wp2991.01.odt he has not taken any acknowledgment in writing from the petitioner. Though great emphasis has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a fatal omission on the part of the Personal Assistant in not obtaining an acknowledgment in writing, we do not consider this omission to be of much significance particularly since there is no evidence of the alleged practice that Personal Assistants are required to take acknowledgments in writing when such documents are handed over. Moreover this affidavit is supported by the letter dated 13/7/2009. The said Personal Assistant has stated in this letter that it was the usual practice not to take acknowledgment in writing from the Chairman whenever notice was handed over. We see no reason to disbelieve the statements of the Personal Assistant. We accordingly hold that the notice of special meeting in question was duly served upon the petitioner. We thus see no merit in the petition and the same stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.