(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8270 OF 2009 Suryakant s/o. Umaji Sabne, Age : 34 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Tandaladi, Taluka Palam, District Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, and 11 others .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. S.D. Shelke, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 7TH DECEMBER 2009. (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent orders one passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dated 14th September 2009, and another passed passed by the learned Additional Collector, Parbhani, dated 27th July 2009, thereby upholding the "no confidence motion" passed against the petitioner in the meeting dated 17th January 2009. 2. Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that a report was called to verify regarding situation of the house of the petitioner and his brother and in the report, it was found that the petitioner and his brother resides separately. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner was not given sufficient oppor;tunity of hearing, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings of the "no confidence motion". 3. The "no confidence motion" was passed by a majority of eight against Nil, in a Grampanchayat consisting of 9 members. On the basis of the record, it has been found that when the Talathi went to serve notice to the petitioner, after reading it, he kept in his pocket and went away of the house. It has further been found that in that situation, the Talathi was required to serve the notice on the petitioner's brother. 4. This court, in the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 4529 of 2009 (Anandsing Dongar Kuwar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Tahsildar Sakri & others), dated 25th (3) November 2009, has taken a view that the act of Talathi of serving the notice on behalf of Tahsildar, is an official act and that the presumption is that an official act is done in proper manner. The burden to rebut the said presumption is on the party challenging the same. 5. In the present case, the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the presumption regarding service of notice by the Talathi on the basis of the record. 6. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8270