1 wp9947.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9947 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.S. Sawant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. B.R. Warma, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. D.D. Pokharkar, Advocate for respondent no.5. 1. Heard Advocate Shri. Sawant for petitioner, Advocate Shri. Warma for respondent no.4 and Advocate Shri. Pokharkar for respondent no.5 and the learned A.G.P. Shri. N.B. Patil for respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. Shri. Sawant for petitioner has raised two contentions, namely one, certificate at page 27 could not have been relied upon for any purpose. He is trying to substantiate his contention by relying upon the judgment of this Court. Second, the Additional Commissioner has proceeded under wrong impression that the birth of 4th child was not disputed by the petitioner. He has invited attention to the relevant plea in this respect in written statement. According to him, there is failure to exercise 2 wp9947.10 jurisdiction. 3. Advocate Shri. Warma contends that the register of birth and death is maintained by very same authority and earlier entries therein are accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, can not deny only part of the said document which is against him. In the alternate, he attempted to point out that said child-Ravindra is even today staying with the petitioner. 4. Advocate Shri. Pokharkar for respondent no.5 supports the arguments of Shri. Warma. Learned A.G.P. adopts same line of arguments. 5. The respondent no.2-Additional Commissioner has in impugned order delivered on 14.09.2010 found that the petitioner never claimed that fourth child namely Ravindra Lakhan is not born to him and he also never raised the plea that the said birth certificate is fabricated. According to the respondent no.2 only limited challenge was that the birth was not reported properly and there were some errors/omissions in that report and hence, the birth certificate could not have been acted upon against him. 6. Perusal of the written statement filed on record clearly reveals that this impression gathered by the respondent no.2 is unwarranted. The petitioner has specifically given names of three children only and has 3 wp9947.10 urged that the last birth certificate is fabricated and false. 7. I therefore find that the respondent no.2 has not applied its mind to the merits of controversy. The impugned order is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. Same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The contentions of Mr. Warma are kept open for consideration by the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 shall hear the parties on merits and take appropriate decision in accordance with law at the earliest. The Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. 8. Needless to mention here that as the Commissioner had earlier granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner, that interim relief shall continue to operate till the Commissioner decides the matter. Parties to appear before the respondent no.2 on 31st January, 2011 and authority shall attempt to decide the matter as early as possible and in any case before 31.03.2011. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 21.01.2011 gas/wp9947.10