- 1 - 34-wp-9332-2011 srj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9332 OF 2011 Smt. Sarika A. More .. Petitioner. V/s. Smt. Jyoti S. More & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude, for the Petitioner. Mr. S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No.5. CORAM: G.S.GODBOLE,J. DATE : 13th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C:- 1 Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2 Three submissions are advanced by Mr. Bhargude which are as under:- (i) By relying on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge (Coram: R. M. Borde J) in the case of Atmaram Chapa Sandanshiv and Another v/s. Shamshadbi Bashir Shah Fakir and Others, reported in 2008 (3), Mh.L.J.-page 906a, it is contended that the Additional Commissioner was a 2008 (3), Mh.L.J.-page 906 - 2 - 34-wp-9332-2011 not competent to hear the Appeal filed under Section 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. (ii) The Additional Collector was not competent to hear the dispute under Section 16 of the said Act. (iii) An Election Petition had been filed on the same ground and the same was dismissed on account of delay and, hence, the Petitioner cannot be dis-qualified on the same ground. 3 I have considered all the three submissions. So far as first submission is concerned, it is clear from the Judgment of the Division Bench (Coram: P. V. Hardas & N. D. Deshpande JJ) in the case of Namdeo Yeduba Pandhare and another v/s. State of Maharashtra that in fact, the State of Maharashtra had issued a notification delegating its power under the Act to the Additional Commissioner. In view of this, the Judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of Atmaram C. Sandanshiv (supra) is clearly per incurium. The same was delivered without noticing the notification issued by the State Government. In so far as second submission is concerned, this cannot be allowed to be agitated for the first time in the High Court, since it was never urged even before the Additional Collector or Additional Commissioner. The third submission is devoid of merits, since there was no adjudication on the merits of the controversy in the Election Petition. - 3 - 34-wp-9332-2011 4 In the facts of this case, there is absolutely no dispute that the Petitioner is born on 25th April, 1990. Considering this date, the Petitioner was not eligible and as on 16th July, 2010, the Petitioner was less then 21 years of age. Hence, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. 5 Writ Petition is summarily dismissed. (G.S.GODBOLE,J.)