wp4621.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.4621/2011 Attaullha Kha A. Pathan -vs- The Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S. V. Dhole, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sonare, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 Shri Dhatrak, counsel for the respondent No.5 to 10. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 10.10.2011. Heard Shri Dhole, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sonare, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Shri Dhatrak, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner was liable to be set aside on the ground that the meeting was not convened within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice as provided by the provisions of Section 35(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the notice was received by the Tahsildar under Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act on 13/06/2011 and the meeting was held on 20/06/2011. Since the day of receipt of notice is required to be excluded for wp4621.11.odt 2/2 counting the period of seven days, it cannot be said that the Tahsildar had not convened the special meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. Moreover, it appears that 19th of June, 2011 was a holiday being a Sunday and hence, the notice period would have been extended to the next day, even without excluding the day of receipt of notice. It would be necessary to refer to the judgment reported in 2002(5) Mh.L.J. 171 in this regard. Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE