1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1926 OF 2010 Varsha Ankush Patil Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.S.R.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, advocate for Respondents No.2 & 3. Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr.M.K.Deshpande, advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 26 th July, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The petitioner was member of Village Panchayat Sundarpatti (Tq.Amalner). She has been rendered disqualified under Section 40 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, by the impugned order, which is confirmed by learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nasik in the proceedings of Disqualification Application No.1/2009. The fact that the petitioner remained absent during the relevant meetings is a matter of record. 3 According to the petitioner, she was not given adequate opportunity of hearing on 29.10.2009 when the matter was scheduled for hearing before the learned President of Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. She contended that she 2 was unable to attend because she has forwarded an application for leave to remain absent on account of her difficulties. 4 Considering the fact that the petitioner remained absent for nine meetings, between 20 th April 2008 to 17 th December 2008, consecutively, without prior sanction of leave, as required under law, it cannot be said that she was justified in claiming exception. Her absence from the meetings is a matter of record. The only question was, whether her explanation was satisfactory or not. According to the petitioner, the proceedings have been manipulated and fabricated. This is, of course, a disputed question of fact and the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to decide such a disputed question of fact. It is pertinent to notice that the explanation given by the petitioner was found unacceptable because her advocate remained absent before the President of Zilla Parishad, yet, there was no proper explanation given for such absence. Secondly, due opportunity was given before the appellate authority to present legal explanation regarding absentia. The record of the monthly meetings indicated her continuous absence and before filing of the application to declare her disqualified to remain as member, the petitioner never challenged such record. The appellate authority has perused the entire record regarding the register of the meetings, agenda thereof and signatures of the members, etc. 5 Considering the relevant record, and the reasons assigned by the appellate authority, I do not find any substance in the petition. 6 Writ Petition stands dismissed. (V.R. KINGAONKAR) JUDGE ******* adb/wp192610