:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 968 OF 2008 Shri Rajesh Gokuldas Mehta ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr. R.P. Sabban for petitioner. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for respondent no.4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. B.H. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. Date Date Date : : : April 11, 2008. April 11, 2008. April 11, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Sabban the learned counsel for the petitioner who was elected as the member of Village Panchayat, Mangaon, District Raigad. Dispute Application No. 10 of 2007 was filed before the Collector by the present respondent no.4 under Section 14 (g) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 for unseating the petitioner. After hearing all the parties concerned, the Additional Collector, Raigad by his order dated 8/8/2007 was pleased to allow the said application and unseated the petitioner as a member of :2: the said Village Panchayat. This order was challenged by filing an appeal under Section 16(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and registered as Appeal No. 378 of 2007. The learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai by his judgment and order dated 15/1/2008 was pleased to dismiss the appeal and hence this petition. 2. Mr. Patne the learned AGP placed before me the proceeding of Zilla Parishad School, Old Mangaon as well as the cash book maintained by the Gram Shikshan Samiti, Old Mangaon. The charge against the petitioner was that he had executed a contract for construction of the additional rooms for the school and he had accepted the money. His defence before the Additional Collector was that the said work did not amount to be a contract awarded by the Village Panchayat and it was a project which was sought to be implemented by the Zilla Parishad through the Village Panchayat as per the Government Resolution dated 18/1/2002, as part of the Sarvashiksha Abhiyan undertaken by the Government of India. On the other hand, both the authorities below have held that the said project was executed through the Village :3: Panchayat and the funds were released by the Zilla Parishad for the construction of additional rooms/halls for the school and, therefore, the said work fell within the ambit of Section 14(g) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. 3. The proceedings and more particularly the Resolution dated 18/12/2006 clearly indicates that the Village Education Committee consisted of eight members and the Headmistress was the Member Secretary of the said Committee. Vice-chairman of the Panchayat Samiti Mrs. Nilam M. Hajite was also one of the members in the said Committee. Resolution No. 20 clearly stated that the Block Officer of the Panchayat Samiti had visited the school on 16/9/2006 and the project of additional rooms’ construction was sanctioned. To ensure good quality work under proper supervision and for proper utilisation of the funds, a Building Sub Committee was formed and the present petitioner was the Chairman of the said Committee along with three other members and the Headmistress. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the construction of school building or additional school building was not the work of the Village Panchayat :4: and, therefore, the subject contract would not disqualify the petitioner. Chapter III of the Act deals with the administrative powers and Duties of the Village Panchayat and Section 45 sets out the administrative powers. Sub-section (3) of Section 45 states that a Panchayat may also make provision for carrying out within the village any other work or measure which is likely to promote the health, safety, education, comfort, convenience, or social or economic or cultural well-being of the inhabitants of the village. As per the policy laid down by the State Government, the projects under the supervison of the Government of India were to be administered through the Zilla Parishad, which, in turn, would hand over such projects to the Taluka Panchayat or Village Panchayat as the case may be. The minutes book clearly indicate that the project was executed through the Village Panchayat and the petitioner was a Contractor for the same. The expenditure disbursed is also from the Village Panchayat and, therefore, it would not be safe to accept that the subject project was not concerned with the Village Panchayat administrative powers. In my opinion, both the authorities below rightly held that :5: Section 14(g) of the Act was squarely applicable and, therefore, the disqualification sustained by the petitioner can not be interfered. 4. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. Ad-interim order stands vacated. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)