1 LPA 16 OF 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9019 OF 2010 Balasaheb Mokashi ... Appellant. V/s. The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and ors ... Respondents. Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate i/b Sandeep Salunkhe, for the Appellant. Ms. P.S. Cardozo, AGP for the respondent Nos 4, 5 and 6. Mr. A.A. Kumbhkoni, i/b T.D. Deshmukh, for respondent Nos 3 and 7 to 10. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 3rd February, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28th January,2011, whereby interim relief as prayed for by the appellant is refused. We were taken through the impugned order. For refusing to grant and/or continuing interim reliefs, the reasons are to be found in paragraph Nos 9 to 13 of the impugned order. The view 2 LPA 16 OF 2011 taken therein is reasonable and possible. Apart from this, learned Single Judge justified in observing that once the person is elected as Sarpanch, he cannot be prevented from entering in the office. Secondly under the provisions of section 35(3D) of the Village Panchayat Act, the Appellant is automatically ceased to be a Sarpanch. Fresh elections are already taken place and third party rights have been created. Under these circumstances no fault can be found with the impugned order. The Appeal, therefore is rejected. 2. Needless to mention that the observations made herein above are prima facie in nature. 3. Parties would be at liberty to approach learned Single Judge with a request to hear the writ petition expeditiously. 4. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant prayed for stay of this order. However, for the reasons recorded, prayer is rejected. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)