vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3505 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.3505 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.3505 OF 2009 Shri Somnath Gourihar Yewale ... Petitioner V/s. Tahsildar, Khatav & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.D. Gharge for Petitioner Mr.P.P. Kakade, AGP, for Respondent-State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: MAY 2, 2009 MAY 2, 2009 MAY 2, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition has been filed by a person who was defeated on account of a No Confidence Motion being passed against him. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch. However, a notice of No Confidence Motion was moved on account of a requisition received from the members of the Panchayat of the village Waduj. The No Confidence Motion was passed against him on 1.9.2008. The dispute was filed by the Petitioner before the Additional Collector on 4.9.2008 challenging the Motion passed against him. That has been dismissed on 13.1.2009. The Appeal preferred by the Petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division has also met with the same fate. 2. The main contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that he was not served with the notice : 2 : dated 28.8.2008 for passing the Motion nor was he served with the requisition. It is contended that on the first occasion when the notice was sought to be served on 29.8.2008, the Petitioner has endorsed on the notice that he had not received the requisition. It is further contended that thereafter neither the notice nor the requisition was served on him. 3. On a perusal of the material on record, it appears that after the Petitioner’s endorsement that he had not received a copy of the requisition, the Tehsildar directed that the notice should be issued once more to the Petitioner alongwith a copy of the requisition. It appears that on the day when the notice was sought to be served, the petitioner’s premises were found locked. A Panchanama was drawn up on 31.8.2008 indicating that the notice was affixed on the premises alongwith a copy of the requisition. 4. In my view, therefore, the petitioner was adequately served with both the notice of the meeting scheduled for moving the No Confidence Motion as well as the requisition moved against him. The judgment in the case of Indubai Vedu Khairnar v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2003(2) Bom.C.R. 239 2003(2) Bom.C.R. 239 2003(2) Bom.C.R. 239 cited by the learned advocate for the Petitioner has no bearing in the facts of this matter. In that case, it was held that since : 3 : service of the notice for the Motion was not properly effected, the Motion could not be discussed without the Petitioner in that case being able to defend the same. 5. In the present case, it is obvious that the Petitioner was served with both the notice of the meeting as well as the requisition and, therefore, no case for interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities below has been made out by the Petitioner. 6. Petition rejected.