1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1083/2011 (Sanjay R. Talekar VERSUS The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.V. Bhutada, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the R-State. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 4 , 2011 . On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur it appears that the authorities did not commit any error in holding that the petitioner was disqualified from holding the membership of the Gram Panchayat under Section 14-1(J-1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. It is necessary to note that the authorities relied on the report of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer as well as the Resolution passed by the Tanta Mukta Samiti for holding that a fourth child was born to the petitioner after the cut off date. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur also relied on a certificate issued by the Sub-Primary Health Centre, Konda dated 06.05.2009, which showed that the wife of the petitioner was visiting the Sub Primary Health Centre at Konda and later on, the wife of the petitioner delivered the fourth child at a hospital in Bhandara. The authorities held 2 that the petitioner had deliberately not made an entry in regard to the birth of the fourth child to the petitioner in the Nagar Panchayat, where the petitioner was residing. The orders passed by both the authorities are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. They call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE