1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3966/2011 RAJESH D. YADAO ..VS.. SECRETARY TO GOVT OF MAH AND MUMBAI AND ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.C. Madkholkar adv for petitioner Shri Bhagde AGP for respondent no.1 to 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : AUGUST, 16 2011. Heard Shri Madkholkar for the petitioner and Shri Bhagde the learned AGP for the respondent nos.1 to 4. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the respondent no.3 Additional Commissioner, Nagpur on 13.7.2011 as also the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur on 1.8.2011 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the no-confidence motion was not legally passed against the petitioner as the notice was not accompanied by 7 additional copies as required by the provisions of Rule 2(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpanch and Upsarpanch No Confidence Motion Rules 1975. According to the petitioner, the petitioner did not receive the notice of the meeting in which the no confidence 2 motion was passed as the same was not affixed on the house of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner reside on the first floor of the house,whereas the notice was affixed on the ground floor of the house where the tenant of the petitioner resides. The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner about the non accompaniment of the 7 additional copies as required by the provisions of Rule 2(2) of the Rules of 1975 is rightly rejected by both the authorities. The authorities held that the additional copies were annexed to the notice under section 2(1) and they were duly sent to the Sarpanch, the Upsarpanch, the Zilla Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, the Collector and the Commissioner. Both the authorities found that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner in regard to the non-accompaniment of seven additional copies was incorrect as the copies were appended to the notice under section 2(1) . The second submission made on behalf of the petitioner in regard to the absence of service of notice on the petitioner was also rightly rejected by both the authorities as the authorities found that the petitioner refused to accept the notice and hence the notice was affixed on the door of the house of the petitioner in the presence of the witnesses. The authorities found that there was valid service of notice on the petitioner. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner stays on the first floor of the 3 house and the notice was affixed on the ground floor is an afterthought and is liable to be rejected as the said ground was not raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal filed before the Additional Collector and is raised for the first time in this writ petition. Since the petition devoid of merit. the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP