IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1643 OF 2009. WRIT PETITION NO.1643 OF 2009. WRIT PETITION NO.1643 OF 2009. Shamrao Tejappa Ghodke ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondents. and Others. Mr C. K. Tripathi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr S. N. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 22nd January, 2009. DATED: 22nd January, 2009. DATED: 22nd January, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused petition. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune confirming the order dated 7.7.2008 passed by the Additional Collector of Solapur whereby motion of no confidence was affirmed. One of the grounds raised by the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was never served with the notice of motion. The Collector has recorded a finding that notice was served. The very same contention was reiterated before the Divisional Joint Commissioner, Pune who has also confirmed the finding of the Collector with specific mention of the original record giving page numbers evidencing service of notice. This finding has not been challenged in the petition except making a bald statement that the petitioner was not served. Contention, in this behalf, does not hold good in view of the concurrent findings of fact by both authorities below which can hardly be said to be arbitrary or perverse. 3. Second ground raised by the Petitioner is that in the minutes it is not mentioned who has supported no confidence motion and who do not. It is clearly mentioned in the minutes of the special meeting, the names of the members who were present and the names of the members who were absent, signature of each of them who was present have been obtained. Under these circumstances, even second contention does not hold good. 4. In the result, the Petition is without any substance, hence dismissed in limini. No order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)