A. H. JOSHI, J. :- On 9th December, 2009, this Court had issued notice for final disposal.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Adv. Mr. S. W. Sambre waives service for respondent no. 1, and learned AGP Mr. D. B. Yengal, for respondent nos.2 and 3.

3. This is an application filed by the Original Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal for review of Order dated 26th November, 2009 passed therein.

4. The points, which are pressed in service, can be summarized as below. It is argued that while deciding the Letters Patent Appeal, this Court has not considered whether:-

[a] The learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon the reported Judgment in case of Nimba Yadav Bhoi Vs. President, Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon & others [2002(3) Mh.L.J. 466], which does not advert to the power available under Section 182 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, which permits the State Govt. to delegate the powers.

[b] The Judgment of learned Single Judge impugned and the Judgment in case of Nimba Yadav Bhoi [supra] - both are based on a presumption that no such delegation exists, though permissible.

[c] The Writ Petition filed before Single Judge was delayed by almost six months and intermittent developments were not brought to the notice of the Single Judge.

[d] Election of the appellant - present applicant had occurred in the intervening period, and normal rule of law that the equity has to restore the litigant what he has suffered has no application to the election law and this aspect was not brought to the notice of learned Single Judge.

[e] The Applicant has entered the office in view of disqualification of the writ petitioner and announcement of election. Applicant's entry in the office is, thus, independent, and applicant, who is duly elected, cannot be shunted out because the disqualification incurred by the writ petitioner has been set aside. Whether Writ Petitioner succeeds or not, but appellant who has entered the office, cannot be dislodged.

[f] Since before the applicant filed Letters Patent Appeal, she was granted Leave to appeal. In the result, view of this Court expressed in para 5 of the Order dated 26th November, 2009 that appellant has no cause of action, meaning thereby that the appellant has no locus standi is an error of law.

5. To substantiate his contention in support of application, learned Adv. Mr. P. C. Madkholkar has placed reliance on following reported precedents:-

[1] Pradyat Kumar Bose Vs. The Hon'bIe Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, [AIR 1956 SC 285 (VA3, C.5t April)],

[2] Union of India & another Vs. P. K. Roy & others [AIR 1968 SC 850) (V.55, C.172)],

[3] Jyoti Basu & others Vs. Debi Ghosal & others [AIR 1982 SC 983),

[4] M. S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala & ors. [(2000)7 SCC 552],

[5] NirmaI Jeet Kaur Vs. State of M.P. & another [(2004)7 SCC 558], and

[6] Shripad Anant Puranik Vs. The General Manager, B.E.S. & T. Undertaking & others [2009(6) ALL MR871].

6. Heard learned Adv. Mr. P. C. Madkholkar for the applicant, learned Adv. Mr. S. W. Sambre for respondent no. 1 and learned AGP Mr. D. B. Yengal for respondent nos. 2 and 3 at length.

7. This Court has given peaceful consideration to all the grounds raised before us.

8. Prime question now argued is as to whether judgment delivered in case of Nimba Yadav Bhoi Vs. President, Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon & others [2002(3) Mh.L.J. 466] (cited supra) is to be tested to be per incuriam on the ground that at that time, Bench did not take into account the availability of the power of the State Govt., to delegate seen in Section 182 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

9. Section 182 is an enabling provision.

10. Whether delegation was actually done by the State Govt., is and was a question of fact. This fact was to be explored, pleaded, agitated and to be proved as a ground, primarily if available for defending the Writ Petition, but as the applicant was not a party to the Writ Petition hence in the Letters Pate