Judgment:
C.L. Pangarkar, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.
2. This writ petition is preferred by one Mandatai Pande, who was elected as Sarpanch of village Dapura Distt. Akola.
3. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows - Petitioner Mandatai was elected as a Sarpanch of village Dapura while respondent Nos. 4 to 9 were elected as members of Grampanchayat Dapura. Respondents No. 4 to 9 submitted a requisition to the Tahsildar i.e. respondent No. 3 for bringing no confidence motion against the petitioner. This notice was served by respondents No. 4 to 9 on 7/9/2008. The Tahsildar called the meeting of the Grampanchayat on 13/9/2008. On same day a meeting of the members of the Grampanchayat was held in presence of the Tahsildar. The notice of the said meeting, it is alleged, was served on the petitioner as well as the members of the Grampanchayat. In spite of such notice having been served on the petitioner, it is alleged remained absent. In the meeting, no confidence motion was carried and a Resolution showing no confidence in the petitioner was passed. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector. The petitioner contended before the said Additional Commissioner that the notice was not at all served on her and therefore she could not remain present in the meeting. It is also contended by the petitioner that the notice was never served on her husband or any person from her family and she had made a request to refer the said signature to handwriting expert. It is also alleged that she was out of station at Yavatmal right from 7/9/2008 to 13/8/2008. Since Resolution was passed behind back of the petitioner, she contended that the said resolution be set aside. The learned Additional Collector after hearing the parties found that the notice was duly served on the petitioner's husband and inspite of such notice having been given, she remained absent and there is no reason to set aside the said Resolution of no confidence. Holding so, he dismissed the appeal.
4. Second appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner by the present petitioner. He concurred with the findings of the Additional Collector and dismissed the appeal and being aggrieved by that this writ petition has been preferred.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.
6. The material questions that need to be decided are that whether there was service of notice on the petitioner's husband and whether it was obligatory on the party of the Additional Collector to refer the signature on the notice to the handwriting expert ?.
7. The foremost contentions that was raised by Shri Chopade, learned Counsel for the petitioner, was that the petitioner had denied service of notice on her or any member of her family. He submits that an application was moved before the Additional Collector to refer the signature on the notice to the handwriting expert. He submits that the Additional Collector did not either reject the application or grant it. There is a copy of the said application at Annexure 'B' filed on record. This application is signed by the husband of the petitioner and he makes a request to send the signature to an handwriting expert. The application could not be considered for the reason that it was not an application made by the petitioner or her counsel. It was an application made by a person not connected with the dispute at all. The court or authority is not supposed to act upon an application of third party not connected with the dispute. Such an application should have been made by the petitioner herself. Although the application has been rejected for different reasons, the fact remains that the application could not be considered. Further more, if the petitioner was so sure that the signature was not that of her husband, the husband should have been examined to rebut it. He does not enter the witness box to state on oath that the signature on the said notice is not put by him. Further more, the contents of the application (Annexure B) appear to be very strange. The notice is said to be served on the husband of the petitioner. The contents of the application show that the husband on examination of the record had found that the notice bears signature of the petitioner in English. Now, if the signature of the petitioner was found on the notice in English instead of that of the husband, one wonders as to how the petitioner says that her husband's signature ought to be sent for examination. Further, it was all the more necessary for the petitioner to have entered the witness box and stated as to whether the signature in English was put by her or not. But from the contents of that application it is obvious that her husband himself says that the notice bears signature of his wife in English. The petitioner could have stated on oath by entering the witness box that the signature on the notice is not either of her own or that of her husband. In the absence of such a statement and the discrepancies as pointed out, there was no need to refer the signature to an expert. The decision reported in 2002(4) All Mah 110 (Sau. Indubai Vedu Khairnar v. The State of Mah. and Ors.) has therefore no bearing on the case at hand.
8. Service on a son has been held to be good in a decision reported in : 2008(3)BomCR755 (Prabhawati Vijaykumar Khivsara v. State of Mah. and Ors.). The service on the husband, therefore, has to be held good. There are concurrent findings of facts. It is not shown by the petitioner as to how these findings could be said to be perverse. On the other hand, I find that the evidence has been rightly appreciated by the courts below. There is no substance in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.