1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1907 OF 2010 Bhausaheb s/o Deorao Shinde ... PETITIONER VERSUS The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner Shri V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 & 2 Shri N.V. Gaware, Advocate for respondent No.4. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6th October, 2010 PER COURT : 1. The controversy relates to the order dated 10.9.2009, recorded by learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, rejecting contentions of petitioner that the child born to respondent was dated 22.10.2002 and not dated 7.6.2001. 2. The learned Additional Collector, Beed, by his order dated 16.9.2008, held that the child born to the respondent, the returned candidate was dated 22.10.2002 and could not be dated 7.6.2001. 2 3. Before adverting to the rival submissions, basic facts need not be ignored that this Court is sitting in deciding the matters under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court, in the matter of Laxmimant Revchand Bhojwani & another Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576, has observed that, "The High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes." 4. The Apex Court, in a three Judge Bench decision in the matter of Rena Drego (Mrs.) Vs. Lalchand Soni & others (1998) 3 SCC 341, again abundantly made clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or the Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Its function is limited to see that the subordinate Court or the Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 5. On evaluation of the factual details, I find there is word against word. The papers showing birth of third child Prasad or Pintya as per the contentions of returned candidate, is 3 7.6.2001, the child having born allegedly as per the contention of the present petitioner, the defeated candidate, child was born on 22.10.2002. The omissions and mistakes in the record were vibrantly seen and the learned Commissioner did not approve the record showing date of birth of the child 22.10.2002. In the set of factual details. no interference is warranted. The authorities concerned have undisputedly examined record and reached to certain observations. Writ Petition dismissed. No costs. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/wp1907.10