1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3264 OF 2010 Radhabai W/o Kishanrao Dhotare .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri A. A. Khande, Advocate h/f Shri M. P. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD JULY, 2010. PER COURT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : . This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of quo- warranto for declaring that the respondent No. 4 is not entitled to hold the post of Sarpanch of village Kanadkheda, Tq. Purna, District Parbhani in contravention to Section 30-1A of the 2 Bombay Village Panchayat Act. 2. The petitioner contends that the respondent No. 4 came to be elected as a member of the village Panchayat some time in the year 2007. In February 2009 as a motion of no confidence was passed against the then Sarpanch, the respondent No. 4 came to be elected as Sarpanch. According to the petitioner, the principal ground is that the respondent No. 4 had not submitted the validity certificate and accordingly, the petitioner filed appropriate application U/Sec. 30-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The Additional Collector, Parbhani treated the petition/application as an election dispute and accordingly by order dated 04.12.2009 dismissed the petition. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed Writ Petition No. 8704/2009 which came to be withdrawn by her on 09.04.2010. 3. In the light of the fact that the order passed by the Additional Collector, Parbhani dated 04.12.2009 has been confirmed, according to us, the present petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has not been able to show to us as to how the respondent No. 4 is occupying the office illegally. Writ of quo-warranto is for showing by what authority of law, the 3 respondent No. 4 is holding the office. The challenge of the petitioner on both the count before the Additional Collector and in the High Court has failed. In that light of the matter, we dismiss the writ petition summarily with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10