1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 379 of 2009 IN Writ Petition No. 4313 of 2008 [decided] [Sunil Digambar Junghare & ors. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.A. Vaishnav, Adv., for the appellants. Mr. P.S. Tiwari, Adv., for respondent no.6. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 31st August, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. Commissioner had already passed an order under Section 145 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, dissolving Gram Panchayat, Rama. Said order was passed because of delegation in his favour by State Govt., consequent to Section 182 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. 2 3. Present appellant approached State Govt., more particularly respondent no.2, against that order. Learned Single Judge has found that such approach under Section 155 was not permissible. 4. Adv. Mr. Vaishnav contends that delegation under Section 182 (1) was subject to provisions of Section 155 and, therefore, Revision was maintainable. He further states that learned Single Judge has proceeded as if the appellants approached Commissioner in revision. 5. Adv. Mr. Tiwari for respondent no.6 and learned AGP for respondent nos. 1,3 and 4, however, support the impugned order. 6. Bare perusal of Section 182 (1) shows that Govt., is authorized by law to delegate its power under Section 145 to Commissioner and accordingly delegation has been effected. Order of delegation at page 130 of the Appeal Memo does not subject said delegation to any supervision or control of the State Govt., or even to Section 155 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. It is, therefore, apparent that the view taken by learned Single Judge cannot be labeled to be either erroneous or perverse. 7. In the circumstances, no case is made 3 out. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Judge Judge |Hedau|