WA 82/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B. LOKUR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY (Madan B. Lokur, CJ) The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 16.9.2009 passed by a learn ed Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2037 of 2009. A requisition was given by some members of the Gaon Panchayat to the app ellant, that is, the President of the Gaon Panchayat. The requisition is dated 2 7.4.2009. The members of the Gaon Panchayat sought to convene a special meeting apparently to show no-confidence in the President of the Gaon Panchayat. The all egation is that the appellant had refused to acknowledge receipt of the notice d ated 27.4.2009. The learned Single Judge considered subsequent letters on the subject, n amely, a notice dated 18.5.2009 sent by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat convening a meeting of the Gaon Panchayat. On receipt of the notice dated 18.5.2 009, which is not disputed by the appellant, a medical certificate was submitted by the appellant expressing her inability to attend the special meeting. The le arned Single Judge noted that on receiving the notice dated 18.5.2009, the appel lant did not bring it to the notice of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat t hat prior notice for convening a meeting for expressing no-confidence on the app ellant was not received by the appellant. The learned Single Judge noted that the central issue, therefore, would be whether the appellant had received the notice dated 27.4.2009. The learned S ingle Judge did not enter into the disputed question of fact since it was not wi thin his domain under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge left the question open to be considered before the appropriate forum. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant did not rec eive the notice dated 27.4.2009. As already stated, the learned Single Judge has not expressed any opinio n on the issue and, therefore, left it open for being considered. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Sin gle Judge in view of the disputed question of fact. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal. It is, accordi ngly, dismissed. Of course the appellant is entitled to seek recourse to other remedies i n law, if so advised.