IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5824 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5824 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5824 OF 2008. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5817 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.5817 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.5817 OF 2008. Sau. Sunita Sharad Sonawane. ..Petitioner. Vs. Ramesh Zela Borse & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr P. B. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms M. P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. DATED: 14. 08. 2008. DATED: 14. 08. 2008. DATED: 14. 08. 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the petitions. 2. These Petitions are directed against the order dated 23.7.2008 passed by Respondent No.4 confirming the order passed by the Collector, Nashik, holding the Petitioner to be disqualified under Section 14 (j-1) of the Bombay Village Panchyat Act, 1968 (the Act), since third child was born on 19.9.2001. ( 2 ) 3. Mr Shah sought to contend that the change in the date of birth of the child in question is 1-9-2001 and not 19-9-2001 and tampering of record is behind the back of the petitioner or change from 1.9.2001 to 19.9.2001 is also behind the back of the petitioner and therefore date of birth ought to have been taken as 1.9.1991. 4. Having seen the documents on record and alterations made therein, the factual aspect of the matter has become disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into, in the writ jurisdiction. 5. Apart from the above, with due application of mind the date of birth of the third child of the petitioner was taken as 19.9.2001 by the authorities below. It is clear that the date was sought to be changed from 19.1.2001 to 1.9.2001 to take advantage of the proviso to Section 14(j-i) of the Act. The view taken by the authorities below is a reasonable and possible view. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The Petition is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. ( 3 ) 6. The interim protection to continue for another period of one week from today since the petitioner desires to approach higher forum. 7. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)