( 1 ) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETN. NO.5490/2008 (Anil Keshao Mapari and others -vs- The State of Maharashtra and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.Jagtap, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 11, 2009. 1) By this petition the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, partly allowing an appeal filed by the respondent No.5 and remanding the matter to the Additional Collector and directing the Additional Collector to give opportunity to the respondent No.5 to lead evidence and further expeditiously decide the matter. 2) The respondent No.5 was elected as a Sarpanch. A notice of no confidence motion was issued on 29/07/2009. It is the case of the petitioners that the notice of no confidence was served on the brother of the respondent No.5 by name Deepak Padghane, as the Sarpanch was not present in the house at the relevant time. It is the case of the petitioners that Deepak resides in the same house with respondent No.5. Before the Additional Collector, Deepak filed an affidavit and specifically denied that he had received the notice of no confidence motion and had acknowledged ( 2 ) the receipt of the same. The respondent No.5 sought permission to lead evidence in this behalf. The Additional Collector, however, did not grant any opportunity to the respondent No.5 to lead evidence. In such circumstances, the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector for deciding the same afresh on merits, after giving an opportunity to the respondent No.5 to tender evidence. 3) The order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 11th December, 2008 is extremely just and reasonable and does not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Since the brother of the respondent No.5 has specifically denied the receipt of the notice of no confidence motion and had filed an affidavit in that regard, it was necessary for the Additional Collector to grant permission to the respondent No.5 to tender evidence in this regard, specially when he had asked for that opportunity. 4) Judgment reported in 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. pg.204 relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. 5) In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE