1506wp1579.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1579 OF 2011 Dr.Arjun S.Rathod ..vs.. Addl.Commissioner and others. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. M.P.Munshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.H.R.Dhumale, Adv. for Resp.no.5 to 10. Ms Tajwarkhan, AGP for resp.nos.1 to 3. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 15th June, 2011. 1. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 19/3/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, by which order the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and the order passed by the Additional Collector upholding the No-Confidence-Motion passed against the petitioner was confirmed. 2. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of village Pimpalgaon (Ijara). It appears that a notice of requisitioning the meeting for passing the motion of no confidence against the petitioner was filed with the concerned Tahsildar. The notice in respect of the said meeting was served on the petitioner by affixing it on the front door of his house in the presence of three witnesses, as the petitioner was avoiding to accept the said notice. The meeting was thereafter held and the motion of no confidence was passed by a majority of six out of seven against 1506wp1579.11.odt 2 the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly removed as Sarpanch. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector under Section 35(3)(c) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The said appeal came to be rejected by the Additional Collector, Amravati by the order dated 31/1/2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division. The appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 35(3)(c) of the Act also came to be rejected by the Additional Commissioner by the impugned order dated 19/3/2011. 4. Both the authorities, therefore, have concurrently upheld the passing of the no confidence motion against the petitioner. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that notice requisitioning the meeting was not served upon the petitioner and both the authorities below have not taken into consideration the said fact and have decided the appeal against the petitioner. In the teeth of the finding recorded by the Additional Commissioner in the order dated 19/3/2011 wherein the Additional Commissioner has recorded that the petitioner was served with the notice by affixing the same on the outer wall of the petitioner’s structure and in presence of three witnesses and in the teeth of the service report annexed to the affidavit-in-reply, by the Tahsildar, it is not possible to accept the said contention of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute