wp3978.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.3978/2011 Kailas Bhagwan Patond -vs- State of Maharashtra and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri O. Y. Kashid, learned counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 29.08.2011. Heard Shri Kashid, learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No.4, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat had challenged the no confidence motion passed against him before the Additional Collector, Akola under the provisions of Section 35 (3) (B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. It was the case of the respondent No.4 that no notice of the meeting was served on the respondent No.4 and hence the no confidence motion was not legally passed against the respondent No.4. Though it was the case of the petitioner and the Tahsildar that the notice of the meeting was served upon the father of the respondent No.4, as the respondent No.4 was not available, both the authorities found that the thumb impression obtained on the notice of no confidence motion did not correspond or tally with the thumb impression of the father of wp3978.11.odt 2/2 the respondent No.4. The father of the respondent No.4 had specifically denied that he had received the notice of the meeting. Both the authorities came to the conclusion on an appreciation of the evidence on record that the notice of the meeting was not served on the respondent No.4 and hence he could not remain present in the meeting and participate in the proceedings. The findings recorded by both the authorities are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. They call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE