1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5383 of 2011 Gulabrao Bhimaji Rathod Vs. Additional Commissioner and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.U. Nemade, Adv. for the petitioner. Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, AGP, for the respondent no.1 to 4. Mr. N.R. Saboo, Adv. for respondent no.5 to 10. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 1 st December, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Additional Collector, Yavatmal on 07.09.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner challenging the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner. The petitioner also challenges the order passed by the Additional Commissioner in appeal on 18th of October, 2011, dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Additional Collector. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the no confidence motion was not legally passed against the petitioner as the petitioner was not served with the notice of this special meeting dated 11.08.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the notice was not served on the wife of the petitioner, and was served on somebody else, the authorities wrongly held that the notice was duly served on the wife of the petitioner and there was valid service of notice without verifying whether the thumb 2 impression on the said notice was that of the wife of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had made an application before the Additional Collector for sending the disputed thumb impression to an handwriting expert for verifying whether it was the thumb impression of the petitioner's wife or not, but the authorities did not give an opportunity to the petitioner to examine the handwriting expert. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in 2004(4) ALL MR 110 to substantiate his submission that it was necessary for the Additional Collector to hold an inquiry whether the thumb impression was that of the wife of the petitioner. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the authorities rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner that the notice of the special meeting was not duly served on the wife of the petitioner as pleaded by the respondent. In this case, it is necessary to note that the Mandal Officer, who had served the notice on the wife of the petitioner had attested the acknowledgment of the service of the notice. Moreover, the nephew of the petitioner was also a witness to the service of the notice on the wife of the petitioner and had signed the acknowledgment. The authorities rightly considered that the ground that the petitioner's nephew was not a witness to the service of the notice, was not raised by the petitioner in the application filed before the Additional Collector. Moreover, an affidavit filed by the nephew of the petitioner by name Ramrao Rathod stating therein that he did not know on which document he was asked to sign and 3 no process was conducted in his presence was rightly disbelieved as the nephew of the petitioner has signed the document in English and it is most unlikely that a literate person would sign as a witness on a document unknown to him only on the say of the Revenue Inspector or Mandal Officer. The authorities found that there was valid service of notice on the wife of the petitioner and there was no necessity to examine the handwriting expert in this case. The judgment reported in 2002(4) ALL MR 110 cannot be applied to the facts of this case as in that case not only was the thumb impression denied by the party but the same was also not attested by the Tahsildar who purportedly served the notice on the parties in that case. Such is not the case here. The document of service of notice is attested by the Mandal Officer who served the notice and is also signed by the nephew of the petitioner as a witness. The findings recorded by both the authorities are pure findings of facts which 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 Hirekhan.