1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2008 Sau. Muktabai Dyaneshwar Gond .vs. The Additional Collector, Buldhana & another ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. Mr. P.S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for appellant, Mr. S.B. Ahirkar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1, CORAM: K. J. ROHEE & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 21, 2008. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant, who is the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, was disqualified by the Additional Commissioner by setting aside the order of the Additional Collector. The disqualification was incurred on the ground that the appellant had indirect interest in the work done by the Village Panchayat. The said interest was indirect in the sense that the work was being done through her husband. The Additional Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge found that the cheques were issued by Secretary of the Gram Panchayat in the name of the husband of the appellant on the written instructions given by the appellant herself. This was enough to show the interest of the appellant in getting the work done through her husband. Thus, the disqualification was upheld by the learned Single Judge. We find no illegality in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. 2 3. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal under Section 16(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 as the powers were delegated to the Commissioner and not to the Additional Commissioner as held in Atmaram Chapa Sandanshiv & another .vs. Shamshadbi Bashir Shah Fakir reported in 2008 (5) AIR Bom R 205. Thus, the order by the Additional Commissioner was without jurisdiction and as such nullity. We are unable to appreciate this contention because this point was not raised before the learned Single Judge. Had it been raised before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge would have dealt with this point properly. In appeal, we do not find it necessary to consider this aspect. 4. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. J.