1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5652/2009 Smt. Revatabai Prakash Shende ….versus... Shri Nagorao Paikanji Uke 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 : JANUARY 21, 2010. Heard Shri G.G. Bade, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri V.G. Dhage, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.2 to 5. Looking to the nature of controversy, service upon respondent no.6 is dispensed with. Heard finally with the consent of parties. Contention of Shri Bade, learned counsel for petitioner is that proceeding under Section 14[1][g] of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 were filed before respondent no.4 – Additional Collector and the Appellate Authority has allowed the Appeal of respondent no.1 and disqualified the petitioner on the ground that, her husband was given benefit of house for poor supply scheme. Shri Bade, contends that respondent no.4 dismissed the application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction and that jurisdiction is available with respondent no.3. 2 Shri Dhage, learned counsel as also learned A.G.P. appearing for respondents state that in appeal or in any manner the issue came up before the competent Authority and the competent Authority has applied its mind. They state that the jurisdiction is to be exercised in the interest of purity of administration, such technical objection without any proof of prejudice should not be accepted. I have heard Shri Bade, learned counsel on merits also. He has tried to show that the husband of petitioner got benefit, when petitioner was not Sarpanch. However, perusal of the impugned order reveals that he was selected as beneficiary in the Gram Sabha dated 06.02.2007 which was presided over by the present petitioner. The subsequent meeting was held on 29.11.2007 and in that meeting of Gram Sabha was confirmed. The first installment was given to husband of petitioner on 17.01.2009 and second installment was given on 29.03.2009. The issue is clearly covered by the judgment of this Court reported at 2005 [3] Mh.L.J. 183 (Ashabai .vrs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati). I therefore, find that no case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.