2206wp484.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.484 OF 2011. Sau.Sunita w/o Arun Kakad ..vs.. Addl.Commissioner and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S.D.Chopde, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 22nd June, 2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 25/2/2010 passed by the Additional Collector,Akola by which the application filed by the respondent nos.5 to 7 seeking the disqualification of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(g) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 came to be allowed. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 7/1/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati by which order the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25/2/2010 came to be rejected. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, Punda. The respondent nos.5 to 7 herein filed an application against the petitioner invoking Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner had given the benefit of the ‘Gharkul Yojna’ to his mother-in-law one Panchfulabai and therefore had fallen foul of Section 14(1)(g) 2206wp484.11.odt 2 of the said Act. Before the Additional Collector number of witnesses were examined and documents were also produced. On the basis of the said material produced before him, the Additional Collector came to a conclusion that the petitioner mother in-law said Panchafula though not an applicant under the ‘Gharkul Yojna’ had been given the benefit of the said Scheme, pursuant to which she was given Rs.15000/-. The Additional Collector, therefore, was of the view that the provisions of Section 14(1)g) of the Act were attracted. Hence, by the first impugned order dated 25/2/2010, the application filed by the respondent nos. 5 to 7 herein came to be allowed. Aggrieved by the said order dated 25/2/2010, the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner also confirmed the findings recorded by the Additional Collector by the second impugned order dated 7/1/2011 and dismissed the said revision. It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that assuming that the petitioner’s mother in-law is a beneficiary of the said ‘Gharkul Yojna’, the same would not fall within the mischief of Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act, as it does not fall in any of the categories mentioned in the said provision. In my view, the said submission is thoroughly misconceived as the Grampanchayat is the nodal Agency for implementing the said ‘Gharkul Yojna’ and in the instant case it is proved by record that the petitioner’s mother in-law - the said Panchfulabai was the beneficiary of the said Scheme though later on the said amount of Rs.15000/- was returned. Both the authorities below on the basis of the 2206wp484.11.odt 3 material that was placed before them have concurrently so recorded a finding. In my view, the said findings are unexceptional and do not warrant interference of this court in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute