( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7228 OF 2010 Babasaheb s/o. Vitthal Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Ajit S. Zarekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.2 & 3. Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16.08.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel. The petitioner’s contention is that though he was required to do certain work on contract basis, yet, since work was completed prior to the date of nomination, he could not be regarded as disqualified person to contest Village Panchayat election as contemplated under Section 14 (1) (g) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. He has filed copy of certificate issued by the Village ( 2 ) Development Officer, which indicates that as on date of issuance of certificate i.e. 09.08.2010 no contractual work was pending with the petitioner. Mr. Shelke points out that this certificate was not filed before the Returning Officer. Mr. Thombre disputes correctness of the certificate. 2. The question whether the work had been completed or not prior to the date of nomination is disputed question of fact. Secondly, the very wording used in the sub-clause (g) of Section 14 (1) would make is explicit that the candidate who has interest in any work “done” by order of the panchayat or in any contract with, by or on behalf of, or employment with or under, the panchayat is disqualified to contest the election. It is but natural that in order to avoid candidature of those who have pecuniary interest in the works executed or executable by the Village Panchayat, such kind of embargo is put under section 14 (1) (g) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. Counsel referred to Shrikant V/s. Vasantrao, 2006 (2) SCC 682. The question in the given case was pertaining to interpretation of Section 9A of Representation of People Act, 1951. The expressions as used in both these provisions are not in pari materia in nature. In view of ( 3 ) these aspects, no interference is called for. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate all the relevant questions by way of regular Election Petition, if he so choses. Petition is disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/AUG10/wp7228.10