1 wp-6660-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6660 OF 2010 1. Sunita Uday Yadav .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Ananda Dourey and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Kedar J. Patil for petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for respondent no.4. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. NOVEMBER 15, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Patil the learned counsel for the petitioner who had to vacate her office as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Sambarwadi on 3/4/2010 because of no confidence motion and she has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the second round, seeking directions against Zilla Parishad, Sangli to decide her application dated 8/3/2010 for the disqualification of respondent nos.2 and 3 under the 2 wp-6660-10 provisions of Section 40(1)(b) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. 2. As per Section 40(1) (b) of the said Act, any member of the Panchayat who, during his term of office, absents himself for six consecutive months from the meetings of the Panchayat without the leave of the said Panchayat, shall cease to be a member and his office shall be vacant. This disqualification under Section 40(1)(b) is required to be decided by the President of the Zilla Parishad either suo motu or on an application made to him in that behalf and the petitioner claims that on 8/3/2010 she has submitted such an application. In Writ Petition No. 5509 of 2010 filed in the first round, this court refused to show indulgence by noting that the petitioner had already filed an application dated 8/3/2010 before the respondent no.1. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner now states that said application has not yet been decided and, therefore, this fresh petition for directions to respondent no.1 to declare that respondent nos.2 and 3 have ceased to be members of the Village Panchayat and that their seats are vacant. 3 wp-6660-10 4. We have perused the application dated 8/3/2010 as well as the averments made in this petition and the petitioner has not made a statement that respondent nos.2 and 3 were not granted leave of absence by the Village Panchayat during the relevant period of consecutive six months and in the absence of such a specific statement made on oath, this petition cannot be entertained as even a prima facie case has not been made out by the petitioner. 5. Hence, the petition is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)