JUDGMENT This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is moved at the instance of one Smt. Bela Singh Sardar and is directed, against an order passed by the Appellate Authority under the West Bengal Panchayat Act by which the said Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the prescribed authority, i.e., the Block Development Officer disqualifying the membership of the petitioner to the Gram Parichayat. 2. Smt. Bela Singh Sardar was duly elected as a Member of the office of Mankiary Gram Panchayat. The case as made out by the respondent No.3 that the said Bela Singh Sardar had submitted her letter of resignation from the office of the Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat which she has subsequently withdrawn. She had also submitted that she might have submitted her letter of resignation from the Congress Party because of her ignorance. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner Bela Singh Sardar was elected to the Gram Panchayat as a Member of Indian National Congress which set up her in the last Panchayat election held on 6th April, 1999 and, thereafter, according to the case of the respondent No.3 she had submitted her resignation from the political party from which she has contested, and as such, she incurred disqualification under Section 213A of the West Bengal Panchayat Act. The said letter written by the respondent No.3 who happens to be the Secretary of the said Gram Panchayat has informed the prescribed authority, i.e., the Block Development Officer that as the said Bela Singh Sardar had crossed the floor and resigned from the political party which nominated her, she is not eligible to remain as a Member in view of the provisions of Section 213A of the West Bengal Panchayat Act. Subsequently, the said Bela Singh Sardar disputed the signature but ultimately she set up a case that the signature belongs to her but she did not admit the contents thereof. The respondent No.3 informed the Block Development Officer that since the petitioner had changed her membership and, therefore, she is not entitled to remain as a Member. Subsequently, the said Bela Singh Sardar disputed the signature but ultimately she set up a case that the signature belongs to her but she did not admit the contents thereof. The respondent No.3 informed the Block Development Officer that since the petitioner had changed her membership and, therefore, she is not entitled to remain as a Member. Upon this allegation there was a hearing and the hearing was conducted by the Block Development Officer wherein the petitioner was present and she gave evidence and at one moment she admitted that she had resigned from the Indian National Congress, which party gave her nomination and upon such nomination she was elected in the Panchayat Election. Therefore, the fact remains that she had resigned 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitio.1er admits the signature but she did not admit the contents of the said signature and in support of the said contention the learned Advocate for the petitioner had produced a series of decisions but the prescribed authority found that the petitioner had resigned from the Congress Party and such finding of fact was affirmed by the Appellate Authority, viz., the District Panchayat Officer. Thus, a finding of fact was affirmed by both the Officers, viz., the prescribed authority as well as the Appellate Authority and, therefore, the question is whether such finding of fact can-be challenged under Article 227. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 has drawn my attention to three decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1) AIR 1988 SC 184 ; (2) AIR 1984 SC 38 and (3) AIR 1975 SC 1297 , which support his case. 6. It appears from the records produced by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the prescribed authority, i.e., the Block Development Officer recorded the evidence of the petitioner Bela Singh Sardar where she admitted that she had resigned from the Indian National Congress after being elected with the ticket of the said party. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that such resignation was not voluntary but I find that both the prescribed authority and the Appellate Authority found that the petitioner could not prove that such resignation was not voluntary. On the other hand, both the Tribunals below found that the resignation was voluntary and, therefore, it will come under the mischief of Section 213A of the West Bengal Panchayat Act. On the other hand, both the Tribunals below found that the resignation was voluntary and, therefore, it will come under the mischief of Section 213A of the West Bengal Panchayat Act. In that view of the matter, I find that the Appellate Authority had rightly affirmed the order of the District Panchayat Officer and the District Panchayat Officer had rightly found that the petitioner had resigned from the political party after being elected from the said party and, therefore, under Section 213A of the Panchayat Act is disqualified to be a member. In that view of the matter, I do not find anything wrong in the impugned order and there is neither any jurisdictional error nor there was any illegality or irregularity in the order itself. In that view of the matter intervention of this Court is not necessary. So, this revisional application is rejected. All interim orders, stand vacated. There will be no order as to costs.