1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 963 OF 2010. (Shri Prakash Shrawanji Patil -versus- The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 02, 2010. Heard Shri V.G. Dhage, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2, and Shri Jawale, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is though provisions of Section 14[2] of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act are deleted on 21.12.2006, the persons who have incurred disqualification before that date continue under that disability even thereafter and hence they are not qualified to contest the election until expiry of period of 6 years, as stipulated therein. He points out that in present matter, respondent no.3 was found disqualified on 30.05.2004 because he had given false certificate of belonging to Scheduled tribe category, in elections conducted on 19.1.2003. The order dated 30.05.2004 continues in force for a period of 6 years because of Section 14[2] and hence nomination filed by him on 04.10.2008 could not have 2 been accepted as he was disqualified. He states that the Additional Commissioner has under erroneous impression interfered in the matter by noticing two defects which really do not exist. Shri Jawale, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 are supporting the orders. Shri Jawale, learned counsel states that as the amendment was already effected in the year 2006 and disqualification was removed, there is no question of disqualification continuing after 21.12.2006. With the assistance of respective learned counsel, I have perused the provisions and also the impugned order. The Additional Commissioner has found that absence of provision like Section 14[2] in Bombay Village Panchayat Act on the date of subsequent election i.e. on 04.10.2008 is not relevant and he has also found that the Additional Collector in its earlier order dated 30.06.2004 did not declare respondent no.3 to be disqualified for 6 years. It is apparent that the disqualification for period of 6 years flows from operation of law and not from the orders passed by the Additional Collector. However, the facts clearly show that after 21.12.2006 said disqualification is not contemplated and has been removed by the legislature. Shri Dhage, learned counsel has pointed out that on the same date provisions under Section 10-1A has been added. Those provisions are different and are not substitute for disqualification. When subsequently disqualification has been removed by the legislation, it is apparent that the recourse to provisions of Section 14[1][k] is also not possible. 3 In this situation, though one of the reason given by the Additional Commissioner in the impugned order is not proper, no case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is thus dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.