(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1172 OF 2011 Smt. Gavlan w/o. Tanaji Tekale, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Ratanpur, Taluka : Kallamb, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, and 11 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate, for respondent nos.5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Salunke, for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Tambe, for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Mr. Jadhavar, for respondent nos.5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12. 2. Motion of "no confidence" passed against the petitioner / Upa-Sarpanch has been upheld concurrently. Adv. Mr. Salunke, for the petitioner, contends that service of notice of meeting has not been effected validly and, therefore, the petitioner could not participate. The contention is, notice is alleged to have been served by pasting it on the residence of the petitioner. But then, panchanama drawn in support of such service is vague inasmuch as, it does not mention the spot at which it is drawn or the time at which it is drawn. He further states that adult members were present at the house and hence effort ought to have been first made to serve notice upon them. 3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, I have perused the records. The ground about improper service ought to have been raised in the appeal memo. Appeal memo is not (3) annexed with the petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, has read out relevant ground from the appeal memo. The said ground reveals a general statement that the petitioner is residing with her husband and her brother-in-law and they are adult male members in the family. It is nowhere alleged that on 24-9-2010 they were present all throughout at the residence and hence service could have been tendered to them. No affidavits of said husband or brother-in-law are also placed on record. 4. The authorities have accepted the panchanama drawn and I do not find jurisdictional error or perversity. As service is found to be effected validly, I do not find any substance in the contention of Adv. Salunke. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1172