1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1947/2011 Prakash R. Ambulkar V/s. Babytai J. Kirdak and ors. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 26 , 2011 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The no confidence motion passed against the petitioner is challenged by the petitioner before the authorities and also before this Court on two grounds. Firstly, it is the case of the petitioner that, the no confidence motion could not have been passed against hte petitioner in the meeting held on 14/12/2010 in view of the provisions of Section 35 (3-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. It is the case of the petitioner that, previously the no confidence motion was moved against the petitioner on 30/11/2009, since only 4 members were present in the meeting on that day and the no confidence motion could not be passed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, thereafter the meeting for passing the no confidence motion against the petitioner was held on 26/08/2010; and hence the second meeting could not have been held within a period of 1 year from 26/08/2010 on 14/12/2010; in view of the provisions of Section 35 (3-A) of 2 the Act of 1958. Secondly, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, a copy of the notice was not actually served on the petitioner and the service of the notice was shown to have been effected at a house at Mana though the petitioner is not a resident of Mana but is a resident of Chinchkhed. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the authorities were justified in rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioner as the meeting of no confidence motion was not held within a period of 1 year from the date of the special meeting in which the no confidence motion was to put vote against the Sarpanch. It is necessary to note that, a no confidence motion was not passed against the petitioner in the meeting dated 30/11/2009 because there were only 4 members present in the said meeting. Thereafter, a meeting was convened for moving the no confidence motion against the petitioner on 26/08/2010 but the proceedings of the meeting were dropped by the Tahsildar in view of the objection raised by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 35 (3-A) of the Act of 1958. It, therefore, cannot be said that the first part of the provisions of Section 35 (3-A) would apply to the meeting dated 26/08/2010 as the motion against the petitioner was dropped in that meeting in view of the objection raised by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore can not rely on the provisions of Section 35 (3-A) of the Act 1958 for challenging the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner. It would be worthwhile to refer to the decision reported in 1998(I) Mh.L.J. Page 43 (Prakash Barku Patil Vs. State of 3 Maharashtra and ors) and relied on by the counsel for the respondents in this regard. The first ground raised by the petitioner for challenging the no confidence motion is not well founded and is liable to be rejected. So also, the second submission made on behalf of the petitioner in regard to the absence of the service of the notice of the petitioner is also liable to be rejected, in view of the findings of the facts recorded by both the authorities in regard to service of notice on the petitioner. In the instant case, the respondents had examined the Talathi of village Mana, the Kotwal of village Mana and the other witnesses of village Mana, who categorically deposed that the petitioner was a resident of village Mana. In such circumstances, the authorities held that though it was not proved that the petitioner owns a house in village Mana, it was clear that he was a resident of village Mana. The authorities, on an appreciation of the panchanama and the other evidence on record held that, the petitioner had refused to accept the notice of the meeting and hence the same was affixed on the residence of the petitioner at village Mana in presence of several panch witnesses. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there was no service of notice on the petitioner and the no confidence motion was illegally passed against the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Punde