SSK/ 1 WP/8306.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8306 OF 2011 Shri Subhash Ramchandra Sathe ....Petitioner Versus Shri Vitthal Namdeo Magar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Avinash B. Avhad, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for respondent no.15. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 7th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C.: Not on Board. Mentioned for urgent production. Production allowed in view of urgency. 2. Heard Mr. Avhad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patne, learned AGP for the State. 3. The writ petition pertains to No Confidence Motion proceedings. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Village-Nimgaon, Taluka- Malshiras, District- Solapur. Village Panchayat-Nimgaon consists of 15 members. On 11th April, 2011, out of 15 members, 10 members gave requisition to the Tahsildar for calling a special meeting to discuss the No SSK/ 2 WP/8306.11 Confidence Motion against the petitioner. The Tahsildar, by notice dated 11th April, 2011, convened the special meeting of the Village Panchayat members on 15th April, 2011. This meeting was attended by 11 members out of 15 members and No Confidence Motion was passed by two-third majority i.e. 10 members supported the No Confidence Motion and 1 member opposed the No Confidence Motion. The validity of the Special Meeting and No Confidence Motion was confirmed by the Collector on 26th June, 2011 in a dispute raised by the petitioner under Section 35(3-B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner's appeal under Section 35(3-C) of the Act is also dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner. 4. Mr.Avhad, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the validity of the Special Meeting and No Confidence Motion on the ground that the notice of the said meeting was not served on the petitioner. He submits that the notice was served on the brother of the petitioner who is residing separately. In this regard, he relied upon the ration card. I find no merit in this submission. Under Rule 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 as far as applicable, the notice is required to be served personally on the member to whom it is addressed, or if such person is not found, same can be served on the adult male member of his family who is residing with him and in the absence of such member, it shall SSK/ 3 WP/8306.11 be served by affixing it in the presence of two witnesses on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the member ordinarily resides. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that his brother is residing separately. As stated above, he has relied upon separate ration card, however same, at the most, will prove that both the brothers are separate in mess. However, that will not conclusively prove that there is partition of the joint family property and they are residing separately. Moreover, the address of the petitioner and his brother shown in the voters list is one. In these facts and circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned order, and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)