-: 1 :- wp-8672/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8672 OF 2011 Smt. Vaishali S. Gosavi. ..Petitioner. Versus Dharamraj P. Waje and Ors. ..Respondents. Ms. Manjiri Parasnis for the petitioner. Mr. J. D. Khairanar for R-1. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for R-2 to 4. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : October 19, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The petition arises from the proceedings of disqualification of the petitioner under sections 14 and 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 [for short “the said Act”]. The petitioner initially was elected as a member of the gram panchayat – Vajewadi and later on as Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. 2. The gram panchayat had kept bank account being SB Account No.13626 in Central Bank of India, Branch Shikrapur. Admittedly, the petitioner accepted Cheque No.023046 for an srp -: 2 :- wp-8672/11 amount of Rs.33,700/- in her name and withdrew the said amount in contravention of the provisions of section 57 of the said Act. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the said amount was withdrawn pursuant to the authorisation by the gram panchayat resolution and said amount was disbursed to the labourers working on the construction site. The case of the petitioner, however, is falsified in view of the report of the Dy. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. There are complaints that the amount which was withdrawn by the petitioner either was not paid to the labourers or persons shown on the list of labourers have not actually worked. Whether the petitioner has paid the said amount to the labourers after withdrawing from the bank, is not the issue required to be decided in a proceeding under sections 14 and 16 of the said Act. We have to consider whether withdrawal of the amount belonging to the Gram Panchayat in her individual capacity by the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of sub-section (g) of section 14(1) of the said Act. The concurrent finding is recorded by the Authorities below that the petitioner has contravened the said provisions. In these circumstances, the petitioner stands disqualified under the said section. I do not find any reason so -: 3 :- wp-8672/11 as to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)