ORDER : T.V. Nalawade, J. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order made by respondent No. 3, learned Additional Collector, Osmanabad and also by respondent No. 2, learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in the matter of proceeding filed for disqualification of the present petitioner. The proceeding was started as the petitioner was not having toilet in her house and so the disqualification was sought under the ground given in Section 14(1)(j-5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Both sides are heard. 2. In the general elections to the village panchayat held in October 2012 the petitioner was elected as member of the Village Panchayat Hingangaon, Tahsil Kallam, District Osmanabad. On 23-11-2012 she was elected to the post of village Sarpanch. On 8-12-2014. Respondent No. 5 filed complaint to the Block Development officer and informed that present petitioner was not having toilet facility at her residential place and so she could not remain even as member of the village panchayat. On 11-12-2014 Extension Officer Shri Jadhav made inquiry on the basis of the order made by the Block Development Officer (BDO) by visiting the residential place of the petitioner. He prepared panchanama of her house in the presence of panch witnesses and he reported that there was no toilet facility in her house. 3. The petitioner is living with her husband Navnath Magar and in the panchanama dated 11-12-2014 it was recorded that the house of Navnath and his brothers like Gopichand and Purushottam are adjoining to each other. It was noticed that in the open space situated by the side of the houses some digging was done and construction material like bricks was kept. On 11-12-2014 Gram Sevak of the village was not available in the village and so he gave certificate regarding absence of toilet facility on 12-12-2014. He also signed on the aforesaid panchanama dated 11-12-2014 to the effect that he agrees with the contents of the panchanama. 4. On the basis of aforesaid record, the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, respondent No. 4, sent the matter to the District Collector for taking necessary action. On 19-8-2015 the Additional Collector Osmanabad issued notice and the petitioner was asked to appear before him with reply on 21-8-2015. 4. On the basis of aforesaid record, the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, respondent No. 4, sent the matter to the District Collector for taking necessary action. On 19-8-2015 the Additional Collector Osmanabad issued notice and the petitioner was asked to appear before him with reply on 21-8-2015. Notice was duly served on the petitioner and she appeared before the Additional Collector but she requested for time to file reply. For giving her time the matter was adjourned by the Additional Collector to 25-8-2015. On that date the petitioner filed reply and on the same day after giving hearing, the learned Additional Collector passed order of disqualification against the petitioner. The learned Additional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal preferred against the decision of the learned Additional Collector after giving hearing to the petitioner. 5. On 19-1-2016 in the present matter notice was issued by this Court to the respondents but no stay was granted to the aforesaid order of disqualification. As the post had become vacant, election to the post of the member of village panchayat was declared and even voting has taken place. The result of the election is withheld due to the order made by this Court on 27-1- 2016. 6. The material available in the present matter is as follows : (I) Before the Additional Collector the petitioner filed reply and she contended that her house was of joint Hindu family of her husband with elder brother Gopichand till 1-10-2014 and after that date, space having size of 50×26 feet was given to the husband of the petitioner and record of assessment was created in favour of her husband on 30-11-2014. She contended that till 1-10-2014 the family of the petitioner was using the toilet which was present in the house of Gopichand. She contended that on 26-1-2014 Gram Sevak had given certificate to her that her family was using the toilet and when new toilet was constructed, they started using new toilet. Thus the petitioner admitted in the say that there was no toilet facility for her family in the house if at all the house was standing in the name of Navnath. It is already observed that in the panchanama it is mentioned that Navnath, Gopichand and the third brother were having their separate houses and in the house of Navnath there was no toilet facility. It is already observed that in the panchanama it is mentioned that Navnath, Gopichand and the third brother were having their separate houses and in the house of Navnath there was no toilet facility. (II) The complaint was given against respondent No. 5 on 27-12-2013 and allegations were made against him that he was responsible for missing of the record of the village panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that the record in respect of house of her husband which was there in the village panchayat is missing. (III) As per the record, there was no certificate of the village panchayat and there was no resolution of the Gram Sabha in favour of the petitioner to the effect that she was regularly using the toilet. (IV) The record of the complaint, the record of inquiry made by the Extension Officer shows that there was no toilet facility in the house of Navnath, husband of the petitioner. On the basis of this material the two authorities below have held that there was no compliance of the provisions of Section 14(1)(j-5) of the Act. (V) The additional record of survey made by the Central Government under the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan Project of 2012 shows that petitioner's husband Navnath and two brothers of Navnath were having separate ration cards in the year 2012. Their status was "Above Poverty Line". As per the record, both Navnath and Gopichand were not having toilet facility in their respective houses. Thus, in the year 2012 even Gopichand was not having toilet facility. In the first record created for the same project in the year 2015 also no toilet facility was shown in the house of Navnath. But afterwards correction was made and toilet facility was shown. (VI) There is record like certificate issued by the District Supply Officer showing that there are separate ration cards issued in favour of Navnath and Gopichand. 7. As against the aforesaid material, the petitioner wants to rely on certificate dated 26-1-2014 issued by Gram Sevak and which is to the effect that the petitioner was having toilet facility. The aforesaid record shows that even Gopichand was not having toilet and so the case of the petitioner that they were using toilet facility of joint family and the toilet was in the house of Gopichand cannot be believed. It appears that such certificate was issued by the Gram Sevak. The aforesaid record shows that even Gopichand was not having toilet and so the case of the petitioner that they were using toilet facility of joint family and the toilet was in the house of Gopichand cannot be believed. It appears that such certificate was issued by the Gram Sevak. Against such person action needs to be taken for creation of false record as the petitioner is admitting that there was no toilet facility to her house till January 2015 and the record is there to show that there was no toilet facility in the house of Gopichand also. 8. The relevant provision for the present matter is provision of Section 14(1)(j-5) which is as under : "14. Disqualification. - (1) No person shall be a member of a Panchayat continue as such, who - (j-5) fails to submit a certificate of the concerned panchayat, along with the resolution of the Gram Sabha certifying that,- (i) he resides in a house owned by him and has a toilet in such house and he regularly uses such toilet; or (ii) he resides in a house not owned by him and has a toilet in such house and he regularly uses it or he has no such toilet but regularly uses the public toilet: Provided that, no member of a panchayat shall be disqualified under this clause, if he submits such certificate to the Block Development Officer, within a period of one year from the 10th January, 2011, being the date of commencement of the Bombay Village Panchayats and Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Second Amendment) Act, 2010 (Mah. XXXIII of 2010); Provided further that, nothing contained in this clause shall affect the member holding office on the 10th January 2011, who has not submitted the certificate within a period of ninety days from the said date, as required under the provisions of this Act, as amended by the Bombay Village Panchayats and Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Second Amendment) Act, 2010 (Mah. XXXIII of 2010); and he shall not be deemed to be disqualified and shall continue to hold his office or a period of one year from the said date, unless he is disqualified under any other provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force." 9. XXXIII of 2010); and he shall not be deemed to be disqualified and shall continue to hold his office or a period of one year from the said date, unless he is disqualified under any other provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force." 9. In the present matter, the election to the village panchayat took place after the period mentioned in the aforesaid two provisos and so those provisos cannot be considered. Only the remaining portion like provision of clause (j-5) is relevant in the present matter. There is finding of the authority that in the record there was no certificate that the petitioner was using toilet facility and there was also no resolution of Gram Sabha as required by this provision in favour of the petitioner. The case that relevant record is missing is not at all probable in view of the various defences which were taken by the petitioner before the Additional Collector. There is some independent record like record created during survey of the Central Government's project. Thus, on facts no mistake is committed by the authority in holding that the petitioner was not having toilet facility and she was not using the toilet at that time. In such cases, it cannot be said that sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner by the authorities who considered the material in defence. All the material available is considered by the authority. 10. The aforesaid provision shows that to become and also to continue as a member requirements of provisions of section 14(1)(j-5) of the Act need to be fulfilled. The provision shows that disqualification occurs and the authority only declares that the disqualification has occurred. In spite of this position of law the petitioner has been successful in protracting the things till this date. The authority and the Court are not expected to delay the decision when no other probability is possible. Section 16 of the Act runs as under :- "16. In spite of this position of law the petitioner has been successful in protracting the things till this date. The authority and the Court are not expected to delay the decision when no other probability is possible. Section 16 of the Act runs as under :- "16. Disability from continuing as member.- (1) If any member of a Panchayat (a) who is elected or appointed as such, was subject to any of the disqualification mentioned in Section 14 at the time of his election or appointment, or (b) during the term for which he has been elected or appointed incurs any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 14, he shall be disabled from continuing to be a member, and his office shall become vacant. (2) If any question whether a vacancy has occurred under this Section is raised by the Collector suo motu or on an application made to him by any person in that behalf, the Collector shall decide the question as far as possible within sixty days from the date of receipt of such application. Until the Collector decides the question, the member shall not be disabled under sub-section (1) from continuing to be a member. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector may, within a period of fifteen days from the date of such decision, appeal to the State Government, and the orders passed by the State Government in such appeal shall be final: Provided that no order shall be passed under this sub-section by the Collector against any member without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard." The word 'reasonable' is used in section 16 of the Act for giving of opportunity to opponent and only when there is other possibility the authority can adjourn the matter and give more time. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued on some other points which were not argued before the learned Additional Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner. He submitted that the authority is described "Collector" in section 16 and so the Additional Collector could not have given decision in such matter. This proposition is not at all acceptable. In view of Schedule E to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code the Collector includes Additional Collector also. Those powers and posts are similar. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a case reported as 2008 (3) Mh.L.J. 906 (Atmaram v. Shamshadbi). This proposition is not at all acceptable. In view of Schedule E to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code the Collector includes Additional Collector also. Those powers and posts are similar. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a case reported as 2008 (3) Mh.L.J. 906 (Atmaram v. Shamshadbi). On the basis of the observations made, the learned counsel submitted that the Additional Collector is not competent to decide the proceeding in view of section 16 as in the reported case after considering the Government Notification this Court had held that the learned Additional Commissioner was not competent as the power could not have been deleted to the Additional Commissioner. However, in view of subsequently decided matters this Court holds that the aforesaid observations in the case of Atmaram are of no use to the petitioner. 13. In the case reported as 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 184 (Ravikiran v. Additional Commissioner) the decision given by the Additional Commissioner was under challenge and the observations show that learned Additional Commissioner was also competent authority. On the same point reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on one more case decided for interpretation of the provisions of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1955 and reported as 1972 Mh.L.J. 661 (Ganeshrao v. Devisingh). This case is on totally different point. Similarly reliance was placed on the cases reported as 1984 Mh.L.R. 148 (Maruti Pandu v. Babu Narayan) and 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 850 (Sheikh Mohamed v. Raisuddin). The facts were totally different. In one case nature of power of the Minister of State to make particular order was under consideration. It was held that the Minister was exercising quasi judicial power of the Government and it was held that it was not possible to delegate such powers. The case reported as 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 466 (Nimba v. President, Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon) is in respect of Section 39(1) proviso of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act and section 96(1) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Act. The facts were altogether different. The case was of removal of Sarpanch for misconduct and on inquiry which needs to be conducted for the same. The provision of the Act prior to amendment of 2006 was considered. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued one more point. The facts were altogether different. The case was of removal of Sarpanch for misconduct and on inquiry which needs to be conducted for the same. The provision of the Act prior to amendment of 2006 was considered. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued one more point. He submitted that if the petitioner was not having toilet on the date of nomination then proceeding ought to have been filed to challenge the election under section 15 of the Act by filing election petition and the proceeding filed for disqualification is not tenable. To support this contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on a case reported as 2010 (3) Bom.C.R. 635 (Shrikrishna W. Dhage v. Shivcharan T. Kalne). It was a case of encroachment and also having 4th child born after the cut off date. It was held that election petition ought to have been filed as the so called disqualification was present on the date of the nomination also. 15. Wording of section 14 of the Act shows that no persons shall be a member of Panchayats continue as such if he had incurred disqualification. The provision of section 16 of the Act is already quoted. 16. The provisions of section 14 as amended in the year 2000 need to be read with the provisions of section 16. These provisions show that the conditions mentioned in section 14 are mandatory and they covered both (a) and (b) categories of disqualification. Thus, the provisions apparently show that the petition before the authority is also tenable. On this point, there is one Division Bench case of this Court in the case reported as 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 178 (Vishwas v. Devendra). The Division Bench has laid down that when disqualification continues, even if it had occurred prior to the election, proceeding subsequent to the election on the same disqualification can be very much maintainable and there is no necessity of filing election petition. The case of the Supreme Court reported as (2006) 12 SCC 484 (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surinder Singh Banolta) is referred and it distinguished from the facts like present one. Reliance was placed by the Division Bench on the case reported as AIR 2009 SC 163 (Dhirendra v. State of Orissa). In view of these circumstances this Court holds that there is no force in this new contention also. Reliance was placed by the Division Bench on the case reported as AIR 2009 SC 163 (Dhirendra v. State of Orissa). In view of these circumstances this Court holds that there is no force in this new contention also. Thus no interference is possible in the order made by the authorities. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, is vacated. Result of the election is to be declared immediately. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for stay. In view of the wording of section 16 of the Act and the facts of the present case this Court holds that it is not possible to stay the things further and so the stay is refused. Petition dismissed.