IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2008 Smt. Ushatai Dnyaneshwar Kadam ..Petitioner Versus Shri Suresh Shankar Kadam ..Respondent Shri Prakash D. Gharge, for the Petitioner. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 8TH SEPTEMBER,2008 DATED : 8TH SEPTEMBER,2008 DATED : 8TH SEPTEMBER,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused petition. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 5th August, 2008 passed by the by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in Appeal No.A/Grampanchayat/Satara/73/2007 confirming the order passed by the Additional Collector, whereunder the petitioner is disqualified under Section 14(1)(g) read with Section 16(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958(the Act). 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that in the show cause notice Section 14(1)(h) is quoted, whereas the action is taken under Section 14(1)(g) of the Act. Reading of the show cause notice shows that there appears to be a typographical error has crept in while -2- referring Section 14(1)(k), sub-clause (h) is wrongly mentioned. . The allegations made in the show cause notice relate to Section 14(1)(g) of the Act. The petitioner has replied. She had properly understood charge levelled against her. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was misled by wrong quotation of the sub-section. On the contrary, as stated reply shows that she understood the allegations made against her in proper perspective. She has properly replied to the show cause notice. Consequently, the submission advanced in this behalf is misplaced in the absence of any demonstrable prejudice. No prejudice suffered is pleaded in the petition nor demonstrated during the course of hearing. . Reliance by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Shri Rustamji Nasarvanji Dangor Shri Rustamji Nasarvanji Dangor Shri Rustamji Nasarvanji Dangor vs. Shri Jeram Kunverji Ganatra & Ors., (1976) 4 SCC 500 vs. Shri Jeram Kunverji Ganatra & Ors., (1976) 4 SCC 500 vs. Shri Jeram Kunverji Ganatra & Ors., (1976) 4 SCC 500 is misplaced. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the documents pertaining to the lease are concerned they were forged documents prepared just to disqualify the petitioner. This submission cannot be accepted. Both the Authorities below have relied upon the documents finding no forgery. The finding of facts are recorded by both the authorities below. At any rate, the disputed questions of fact, as to whether these documents are forged or not, -3- cannot be gone into in the Writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3. In the result, Petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.)