(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 3461 of 2009 Maroti s/o. Rajaram Kangule & Another. .. Petitioners. versus The State of Maharashtra & 8 Others. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. Shaikh Lateef, Advocate, for respondent nos.5 to 9 / caveators (Absent). .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 12TH JUNE 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned Additional Collector, Nanded, vide order dated 15th October 2008, thereby dismissing the dispute filed by the present petitioners, challenging "no confidence motion" dated 11th August 2008, and the order dated 29th December 2008, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, (2) Aurangabad, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners. 2. Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were not served with the notice of "no confidence motion" and, as such, the proceedings are vitiated. He has further contended that some of the members have been disqualified on the ground of not supplying the caste validity certificate within the stipulated period and that the disqualification operates retrospectively and, as such, their votes cannot be taken into consideration. 3. Perusal of the record would reveal that out of 7 members of the Grampanchayat, 6 members, including the petitioner no.1, were present in the meeting. The "no confidence motion" came to be passed by a resolution of five against one. It is difficult to appreciate the contention of the petitioners, that the notice was not duly served on the petitioners, inasmuch as, one of them had participated in the meeting. The learned Authorities on perusal of the record have concurrently found that the notice was also duly served on the petitioner no.2. 4. In so far as second contention is concerned, proviso to Section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, incorporated by Maharashtra Act No. 37 of 2006, stands deleted by Maharashtra Act No. 5 of 2009. 5. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (3) 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp3461