1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8269 OF 2009 Ashwini Santosh Chorghe .. Petitioner. Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Pune & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.J.Shekhar for the petitioner. Mr.Suresh Bhosale A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Coram : D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below whereby the resolution passed by the village panchayat expressing no confidence against the petitioner-sarpanch, has been upheld. Mr.Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned orders solely on the ground that the notice of the meeting was not served on the petitioner. It is clear from the record that the notice was served on the husband of the petitioner. In view thereof Mr.Shekhar submitted that the husband of the petitioner has filed an affidavit disputing his signature on the acknowledgment. From the material placed on record it is clear that such contention was raised and the affidavit of the husband was 2 placed on record for the first time before the Commissioner. As a matter of fact before the Collector, service of the notice of the meeting on the family member was accepted by the petitioner. In the circumstances the Commissioner after having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, in the impugned order, has rightly observed that the stand of the petitioner in respect of the service of notice was after thought. Considering that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities below and considering that there is sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering extremely limited jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution to disturb the findings of fact, this petition fails and dismissed as such. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)