bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6523 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6523 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6523 OF 2008 Smt.Chitra Shekhar Khule ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.V.M.Parshuram i/by P.L.Bhujbal for the petitioner. Mr.V.A.Sonpal, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Rakesh Bhatkar for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr.Vijay D. Patil for the respondent No.5. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petition challenges the order dated 28.7.2008. A preliminary objection is raised by Mr.Patil appearing for the respondent No.5, that an appeal is maintainable under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (in short, "the Act") itself under Section 16 and, therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained. 2. The order impugned has been passed under Section 14(g) of the Act. An appeal from any order passed under Section 14 is available under Section 16 of the Act. 2 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is a final order under Section 7 of the Act and no appeal or revision is maintainable from such an order. It is submitted that the impugned order against the petitioner has not been passed under Section 14(g) but only under Section 7 and, therefore, no appeal or revision is maintainable. 4. A perusal of the order impugned in the petition, which is dated 28.7.2008 indicates that the order has been passed under Section 14(g). The learned counsel for the petitioner read the entire order and urged that there is no allegation against the petitioner except with regard to the non-holding of meetings as required under the Act. He contends that the allegations of impropriety in respect of any monetary transactions were directed only against the Up-Sarpanch and not the petitioner who was the Sarpanch. He submits that such complaints had been filed only with a view to get rid of the petitioner, who is a woman. These submissions, in my view, do not take the case of the petitioner any further. The order has been passed under Section 14(g). There is a reference to the fact that amounts were paid in cash for the purchase of cement from a shop known as M. Ratanlal in which the Up-Sarpanch had an interest. 3 It is therefore held that the Gramsevak and Sarpanch of Kelashi Gram Panchayat had committed these breaches of law. 5. In this view of the matter, the decision is with respect to non-holding of the meeting as required under the Act as well as with regard to the monetary transactions in breach of law. The petitioner has an alternate, efficacious remedy available of preferring an appeal under the Act. 6. Writ petition rejected. 7. The petitioner is continuing in office by virtue of interim order passed on 22.9.2008, directing the parties to maintain status-quo. That order will continue till the filing of the appeal. The petitioner may make whatever application she may desire before the appellate authority for interim orders which will be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. 8. The status-quo as directed earlier to be maintained for a period of four weeks.