bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7216 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7216 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7216 OF 2008 Maruti Sambhaji Bhagwat ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Prashant P. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Pune, under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land Revenue Code, 1966. A dispute with regard to the disqualification of the petitioner as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was raised with the Collector on the ground that the petitioner had more than two children. The Collector allowed the dispute and disqualified the petitioner. An appeal was preferred by him before the Additional Commissioner which has also met with the same fate. 2. A contention is raised that the petitioner had no 2 opportunity to present his case before the Additional Commissioner since his advocate had remained absent. This submission cannot be accepted as the Commissioner has referred in his order that the appeal which was filed in April, 2007 was heard from time to time till December, 2007 when the advocate for the appellant chose to remain absent. 3. Another grievance is made that the child Aarti was not the petitioner’s child since he had divorced his wife prior to Aarti’s birth. However, on evidence it is seen that the divorce took place much after the child was born. 4. Writ petition rejected.