APPA MUNJAJI PAWAR Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, aurangabad dated 19. 6. 2009 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 19. 5. 2009, vide which dispute filed by the present petitioner challenging the no confidence motion' dated 21. 3. 2009 came to be rejected.

(2.) Shri Ghatge, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, Rule 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayat rules, 1959, requires that notice of the meeting has to be served personally on the members and in his absence upon, an adult member of the family residing with member. It is submitted that only in the event that such members are not available it can be served by affixing the notice on the conspicuous part of the house.

(3.) The six members of the gram panchayat had tendered notice of no confidence motion to the Tahasildar. Accordingly Tahasildar conveyed a meeting for no confidence motion on 19. 3. 2009. In the said meeting 7 members out of 9 were present. All seven members supported the motion for no confidence and accordingly resolution came to be passed. The authorities have concurrently held that though notice was duly served on the present petitioner", he did not remain present.