1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.4575 of 2007 Shri Bhagwant Bapu Zende Petitioner Vs. Smt. Savita Santosh Gore & ors. Respondents Mr.Rahul S. Kate for petitioner. Mr.Girish Godbole & Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.P.P.Kakade, AGP for respondent nos.4 to 7. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. June 3, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Kate, the learned counsel for the petitioner who had approached the Collector with an application filed under Section 16 read with Section 14 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Additional Collector at Solapur by his order dated 31/3/2006 allowed the application and held that the respondent nos.1 and 2 were disqualified to continue as the members of the Morochi Village Panchayat. The Collector held that when the respondent nos.1 and 2 had submitted their nomination forms for contesting the elections on 17/11/2005, both of them were below the age of 21 years. The respondent nos.1 and 2, 2 therefore, approached the Divisional Commissioner in an appeal under Section 16(2) of the Village Panchayats Act and the said appeal was allowed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner by the impugned order dated 4/4/2007. 2. There is no dispute that when the respondent nos.1 and 2 had submitted the nomination papers, they were below the age of 21 years and on their being elected as members of the Village Panchayat, the only remedy available to the petitioner or any other citizen was to file an election petition under Section 15 of the Act. Section 16 of the Act empowers the Collector to declare that any member of the panchayat who is elected and was subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 14 at the time of his election, he shall be disabled from continuing to be a member and his office shall become vacant. The disqualifications mentioned in Section 14 and more particularly in sub-section (1) (a-1) reads as under: " No person shall continue to be a member of a Panchayat as such, who has been disqualified by or under any law for the time being in 3 force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the Maharashtra State. Provided that, no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty-one years." 3. It is submitted by Mr.Kate, the learned counsel that a plain reading of the proviso shows that any person who had not attained the age of 21 years when he had submitted the nomination form is disqualified from being elected. This submission was accepted by the Collector. However, the Additional Divisional Commissioner rightly stepped in and quashed the order passed by the Collector by referring to the following decisions of this Court: (1) Kalpana Ananda Sutar Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.[1998 (2) Mh.L.J. 626] [1998 (2) Mh.L.J. 626] [1998 (2) Mh.L.J. 626] (2) Rama Mukharu Wakhare vs. Kashinath Antaram Gahane [1996 (1) Mh.L.J. 478] [1996 (1) Mh.L.J. 478] [1996 (1) Mh.L.J. 478] (3) Tulsabai Maroti Shelke vs. Additional 4 Commissioner, Amaravati & ors. [2004 (2) [2004 (2) [2004 (2) Mah.L.R. Mah.L.R. Mah.L.R. 780] 780] 780]. . The Additional Divisional Commissioner rightly held that unless there was an order passed by any statutory authority holding that the respondent nos.1 and 2 were disqualified under any law for the time being in force, it was not permissible for the Collector to entertain an application under Section 16 and to create a vacancy on the grounds that the respondent nos.1 and 2 had not attained the age of 21 years. The view taken by the Additional Commissioner cannot be termed as perverse or illegal so as to cause interference in the same under the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. Hence the petition is rejected summarily. (B.H.MARL