wp6122-11.odt /1/ Order IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 6122 of 2011 Sau. Suryakanta B. Nagdevate Vs. State of Mah. thr. Secretary, Mangralaa, mumbai and others. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Bhuyar, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 16 th December, 2011. It appears that a ‘No Confidence Motion’ was passed against the petitioner Sarpanch on 1.11.2011 and the petitioner has preferred an appeal under section 35(3-B) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, challenging the ‘No Confidence Motion’. During the pendency of that appeal, by the communication dated 11.11.2011, the Block Development Officer had asked the Up- Sarpanch to take charge of the post of Sarpanch as a ‘No Confidence Motion’ has been passed against the petitioner-Sarpanch on 1.11.2011. The petitioner could have sought a stay of the resolution dated 1.11.2011 before the Additional Collector, Amravati in the appeal filed under section 35(3-B) of the Act. The petitioner could have as well sought a stay to the impugned communication dated 11.11.2011, before the wp6122-11.odt /1/ Order Additional Collector, Amravati. The petitioner should not have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the communication issued by the Block Development Officer on 11.11.2011. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.