( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3341 OF 2010 Vasant s/o Balaji Chepurwar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. G.C. Navandar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr. A.B. Dhongade, advocate for the respondent No. 5. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The respondent No. 5 was elected as a Ward Member from ward No. 17 of Vasmat Municipal Council. After his election, the petitioner raised objection about eligibility on the ground that the respondent No. 5 was below 21 years of age when he had filed nomination papers and, therefore, was not qualified to contest the election. The learned Collector allowed the application and held that election of the ( 2 ) respondent No. 5 was liable to be set aside. Hence, his election was cancelled. The respondent No. 5 preferred appeal under section 44 (4) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, “the MMC Act”). The competent authority allowed the appeal by the impugned order dated 24th December, 2009. 3. It emerges from the record that no objection was raised at the time of filing of the nomination papers by the respondent No. 5. The objection regarding his age was raised after the election was over. The petitioner relied upon copy of affidavit of father of the respondent No. 5 and the entries in the school record. The Collector accepted the said document and, therefore, held that the respondent No. 5 was not qualified being less than 21 years of age. The appellate authority found that entries in the birth and death register maintained by the Municipal Council were more relevant. The concerned entry in the Municipal Council record indicated that birth date of the respondent No. 5 was recorded as 2nd May, 1985. The appellate authority noticed that there was no interpolation of the relevant record. The documentary evidence appears to be inconsistent. It cannot be said, therefore, that the appellate authority rendered the impugned decision ( 3 ) without there being any material on record about the age of the respondent No. 5. In any case, age of the respondent No. 5 is a disputed question of fact. The question regarding his age at the time of filing of the nomination paper cannot be determined without there being due trial of the issue involved. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp3341-10