1 W.P. 9530.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9530 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders ................................ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 21/12/2011. Mr. V.M.Maney, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. G.R.Ingole, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. Dhakane, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 6,7,9,10 & 11. Mr. R.R.Sancheti, Advocate for Resp. No. 4. ..................... PER COURT : 1. The ‘ no confidence motion ’ was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the same before the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar. The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar allowed the petition filed by the present petitioner. Against the said order, the present respondent preferred Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik. The Additional Commissioner, Nashik allowed the Appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2 W.P. 9530.2011 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. It appears that the Additional Commissioner, Nashik has allowed the Appeal filed by the respondents holding that the notice of the meeting of no confidence has been served upon the petitioner. It transpires that no personal service of the notice of the meeting of no confidence was made on the petitioner. There is no panchanama about the pasting of the said notice. The panchanama was not signed by any witness. It was stated by the Talathi that no witness has agreed to sign the said panchanama. It is the contention of the present respondent that even the notice of the meeting was served by registered post and the petitioner has refused to accept the said notice and so it is deemed to have been served. Mr. R.R.Sancheti and Mr. Dhakane,the learned counsel for the respondents submit that taking into account the dates mentioned on the postal acknowledgment, it will have to be deemed that it was before 24/06/2011. 4. Mr. Maney, the learned counsel for the petitioner also took a plea that the Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik is barred by limitation. 5. The limitation period would start from the receipt of the copy of the Judgment. It seems that the intimation of the 3 W.P. 9530.2011 Judgment was given to the present respondents subsequently. The same has been clarified in the affidavit. There does not appear to be any delay in filing Appeal. 6. As far as service of notice is concerned, the notice by affixing on the house of the petitioner, can not be accepted as due service, because the panchanama that is said to be drawn, does not bear the signature of any witness or panchas. It is stated that nobody was ready to sign the panchanama. Even the names of those persons who had refused to sign the panchanama, is not stated, so the same can not be accepted as valid service. 7. It has also been stated by the respondents that even the notice has been issued by registered post and served upon the petitioner. The petitioner has refused to accept the service and an endorsement to that effect is made. So, it shall be deemed to be the proper service. If the petitioner has received the notice of the meeting of no confidence by registered post and has refused the acceptance of the same, the same has to be deemed to be proper service. In the present case, in the order of the Additional Commissioner, Nashik , it nowhere transpires as to when the said notice was tried to be served on the petitioner and the petitioner has refused to accept the same. The Additional Commissioner, Nashik is required to give 4 W.P. 9530.2011 finding on the same. 8. In light of the above, I quash and set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties back to the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall consider the evidence in respect of the service by post upon the petitioner and shall give a finding as to when the same has been served on the petitioner or when he has refused to accept the same. The parties shall appear before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik on 04/01/2012. The Additional Commissioner, Nashik shall thereafter decide the said Appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of two ( 2 ) months after the appearance of the parties. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 9530.2011