1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1981 OF 2010 Sudam Mukinda Kakad …....versus...... Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MAY 05, 2010. Heard Shri A.V. Gawande, learned counsel for petitioner and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for petitioner points out that the notice of no confidence motion was not served upon the petitioner Sarpanch and reliance by lower authorities on panchanama to hold such service is wrong. Panchnama as drawn is fabricated, as it does not contain any seal of the Gram Panchayat or issuing authority. He further points out that, no independent notices of no confidence motion were issued and only acknowledgments were obtained. He therefore contends that as mandatory provisions of law are violated, the resolution of no confidence is not validly passed. I have perused the panchnama which is signed by 6 persons as witness and also by the police patil as one, 2 who has affixed the notice on the house of petitioner. It is recorded that on the relevant date i.e. on 22.10.2009 the petitioner and none was not present in his house, hence it was required to be affixed. The contention that it was a fabricated document cannot be accepted. The petitioner has not come up with any specific case in this respect. The acknowledgment produced clearly show that the notice of no confidence was accompanying it. That enclosure is not produced before the Court by the petitioner. In any case it is for a person who has not received the notice, to complain about it. In view of this, no case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is thus dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.