1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3395 OF 2009 Nandabai w/o Prakash Mali and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.A. Wakure, advocate for the petitioner Mr. T.S. Lodhe Patil, AGP for respondents 1 to 4. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 27TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This petition takes exception to the order dated 17.11.2008 passed by respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal No. 305 of 2008 reversing the order passed by the respondent No.3 District Collector, Osmanabad. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the pleading of the petition and the annexures thereto and contended that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner holding that two members of the Panchayat were not served with the notices, is not correct and is contrary to the record. According to him, 2 the authorities below has correctly recorded the finding and no interference was called for by the Commissioner. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that since notices were served on all members and findings recorded by the Commissioner are contrary to the record, thus the order passed by the Commissioner deserves to be quashed set aside. 3 Learned AGP has filed affidavit in reply and has submitted that notices were issued to all the concerned members including respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and five notices were served through Talathi and two notices of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were tried to be served through Naib Tahsildar. Learned AGP ultimately submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 After hearing counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the State authorities, I am of the considered view that the Commissioner has properly scrutinized the evidence produced before him and he found that the Tahsildar Tuljapur has issued notices only to five Panchayat members. The Commissioner has further observed that the letter was written by the Tahsildar on 13.8.2008 to the Talathi. It is mentioned in the said notice that notice is issued only to five members, however, it appears that subsequently, figure 5 is scored and 7 is inserted in place of 5. The Commissioner has also observed that the record has been tampered. The Commissioner came to the definite 3 conclusion that notices are issued only to five members and they were duly served. Therefore, the Divisional Commissioner has set aside the proceedings of meeting dated 18.8.2008. Though the counsel for the petitioner has tried to contend that all members were served, however, there is no reason to disbelieve the categorical finding recorded by the Divisional Commissioner that two members were not duly served. The Commissioner has properly scrutinized the record and reached to the definite conclusion. No interference is called for in writ jurisdiction. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. (S.S. SHINDE, J). rlj/