1. Petition is directed against the order dated 7th November, 2012 passed by Additional Collector, Osmanabad declaring that the resolution dated 12th October, 2012 of no confidence passed against the petitioner in the meeting is valid and the Saprach i.e. the Petitioner is disqualified to hold the post of Sarpanch. The petitioner is elected member of Village Panchayat of Khamkarwadi. He is elected for a tenure of 2010 to 2015 and he is holding the post of Sarpanch. Village Panchayat of Khamkarwadi constitutes 7 members. On 8th October, 2012 there was a requisition demanding meeting for motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch. On 9th October, 2012 Tahsildar issued notice pursuant to the requisition informing all the 7 members of the Village Panchayat that the meeting was scheduled on 12th October, 2012. Accordingly, the notices were served on 5 members of the village Panchayat. As per the case of the petitioner, it was not served on him and on the one member of the Panchayat. While arguing it was submitted that Petitioner restricts his case to, that there was no proper service of the notice under the Act on him and he does not press case of nonservice of notice on the other member. Thus, the meeting was conducted on 12th October, 2012 and the 5 members of the Village Panchayat, who were present, unanimously passed a resolution of no confidence against the Sarpanch. The said resolution was challenged by the present Petitioner by filing a dispute under section 35 (3B) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before Additional Collector, Osmanabad, on the ground that the notice of the meeting was not served on the petitioner. After considering the submissions and documentary evidence of both the parties, the said dispute was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a notice in respect of meeting on the point of no confidence motion is to be served on the person concerned i.e. the Sarpanch. It is mandatory under section 35 of the Act. He submitted that section 35 (2) gives right to the person concerned Sarpanch/ Upa Sarpanch to not only attend the meeting but he has a right to speak and vote in the meeting. Notice is required to be served under Rule 2 (2) of the Village Panchayat Rules of 1975. Similarly, under Rule 7 of Bombay Village Panchayat (Meetings) Rules, the notice is to be served personally on Sarpanch if he is not present then on an adult male member of the family and if it is not served on the adult male member then it can be served by affixing at the conspicuous place of the house in the presence of two witnesses and Panchanama to that effect accordingly be drawn. Learned counsel submitted that the notice was allegedly served on Sarpanch by a Panchanama dated 10th October, 2012. However, said Panchanama discloses that Tahsildar did not follow proper steps under Rule 7 of the Rules and the Panchanama was false. He submitted that the Panchas were taken to serve the notice on Sarpanch with presumption that the Petitioner/ Sarpanch would not be available in the house. He submitted that the strict compliance under section 35 is required. In support of his submission he relied on following judgments of this Court:

(1) "Bhika Narayan Gangurde and others V/s State of Maharashtra and others" reported in 2002 (1) Bom.C.R. 186.

(2) "Shivkant Haribhau Bangar V/s Gramsewak and others" reported in 2010 (4) Bom.C.R. 191.

(3) "Ashabai Ashok Shinde V/s Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division and others" reported in 2009 (2) Bom. C.R. 880.

(4) "Indubai Vedu Khairnar V/s State of Maharashtra and others" reported in 2003 (2) Bom. C.R. 239.

He prays that the order passed by the Collector is thus bad in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, Osmanabad. It was argued that the service of notice was done properly in the presence of two witnesses by affixing the said notice at the con