wp1268-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1268 OF 2011 Nandalal Haribhau Ahire ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors ..Respondents Mr.Hiten S. Venegaonkar for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Rameshwar N. Gite for respondent No.5. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 12th July 2011. P.C.: Rule. The Respondents waive service. By consent, the petition is heard finally. . This is a case where the petitioner impugns the concurrent orders disqualifying him from membership of Gram Panchayat, Khede. This Gram Panchayat is in Nephad taluka of Nasik district and elections therefor were held on 26th June 2010. The petitioner contested from Ward No.1 and was wp1268-11.doc 2 declared elected. It was the case of the petitioner that nobody objected to his nomination form particularly on the ground that he has more than two children after the cut off date and, therefore, he does not stand disqualified under section 14(1) (j-1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. 2 However, upon a complaint made by respondent No. 5, the issue of the petitioner’s children was examined and both authorities have concurred in holding that the petitioner stands disqualified because he has more than two children. 3 The only argument canvassed before me is that the dispute is about the third child. But, in fact she is stated to have been born in 1996. If, purely going by the dates, she is the first child of the petitioner. He has given birth to son Ganesh on 8th September 2002. He has a daughter born on 3rd May 1999 but he and his wife Mangal having given birth to a child Diksha Nandlal Ahire and born on 5th November 1996 is disputed. Both, the Collector and Commissioner have found that this wp1268-11.doc 3 daughter Diksha is indeed the child of the petitioner and his wife Mangal. She was admitted to the primary school at Ugav which is Zilla Parishad school. The school register shows that she was admitted by the said petitioner and his wife and they gave information about the date of her birth. Both the authorities found that if the case of the petitioner is that Diksha Ahire was not their child, then, merely because the birth and death register of the relevant year was not produced, does not mean that they have proved the case. They have to disprove the contents of the register maintained by the primary school run and administered by the Zilla Parishad, so also the extract which has been produced by the respondent No.5. 4 In my view, by now it is well settled that in case of people residing in rural areas, the information provided by them while admitting their wards in primary school is worthy of acceptance and the said information, based upon which the school register including the school leaving register is maintained has probative value and particularly when nothing wp1268-11.doc 4 else is produced. In the instant case, if the petitioner’s version is that the said Diksha is not his child, it was for him to have proved that version. Having failed to do so, the authorities were right in concluding and holding that the petitioner stands disqualified for having three children. The concurrent findings of fact do not require interference in the writ jurisdiction. However, it is unfortunate to note that the craze and ambition for power has reached such an extent that in cases like these, persons like the petitioner have disowned their own family and children. This was certainly not intended when the Constitution makers accepted the democratic form of Government and gave it due recognition. It only means that certain aspects are yet to percolate down to the masses. Writ petition is dismissed in above terms. Rule is discharged. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)