1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.363 OF 2009 Smt. Shaila Pradeep Patil And Others. ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondents Nos.1,2 and 5. Shri. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondents Nos.3 and 4. Shri. J.M. Murkute, Advocate for respondent No.6. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ. DATE: 6th AUGUST 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the present body of the Gram Panchayat cannot be held responsible for 2 mere taking entry of the sale transaction concerning houses allotted to the respective persons under the Government's “Gharkul Yojana”. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 178 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958. It is stated that this writ petition is filed prior to registration of the First Information Report. However, later on, the FIR is registered by the police at the behest of the Block Development Officer. 3) Shri. Jadhavar learned counsel further submits that the earlier body of the Gram Panchayat is not held responsible as their term was over which is a wrong approach of the authorities. 4) Considering the facts of the case we are not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners have statutory remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 3 which they may avail of. We express no opinion on merits of the matter. The petitioners may resort to alternative remedies. 5) The writ petition is disposed of. 6) At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner No.1 – Shaila had delivered a child in the month of March 2009 and therefore, ad-interim relief granted earlier by this Court be continued for a period of two weeks as regard petitioner No.1 – Shaila. 7) The ad-interim relief granted by this Court in terms of amended prayer clause “D-1” shall remain in operation only to the extent of petitioner No.1 – Shaila for a period of two weeks. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crwp.363.09 4