1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4524/2009 (Smt. Namrata S.Wasnik ..vs.. Divl. Commissioner and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- NOVEMBER 04, 2009 Heard Advocate Shri S.W.Sambre for the petitioner, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Advocate Shri R.D.Murkute for respondent Nos.4 to 12. Advocate Shri Sambre contends that notice was not served upon petitioner as required by Rules and though respondent No.4 was disqualified, he was permitted to participate in ‘No Confidence’ meeting. He further states that copies of requisition and notice were not served upon other authorities as required by Rules. Respective Advocate for the respondents state that no confidence motion has been carried out by ‘nine’ against ‘zero’ (9 : 0) and they further state that petitioner has not demonstrated any prejudice to her in the matter. It is further stated that the petitioner could have remained present in the meeting and could have 2 answered the allegations or then could have pointed out that for the reasons beyond her control, she could not prepare to answer those allegations. I have perused the orders. It appears that respondent No.1 was disqualified by the Assistant Collector, Chandrapur on 27th April, 2009 and the meeting for ‘No Confidence’ has been held on 24/2/2009. The petitioner has not disclosed the date and time at which the notice of no confidence meeting was served upon her. She has also not stated the circumstances, which prohibited her from participating in the meeting. The total number of Members is 11 and out of them 9 have voted against the petitioner. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE diwale.