:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6742 OF 2008 Smt. Reshma Santosh Kamble ..Petitioner Vs. Smt. Prema Ajit Vitekari and ors. ..Respondents Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for petitioner. Ms. Deepti N. Pawar h/f Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for respondent no.1. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H. BHATIA,JJ. J.H. BHATIA,JJ. J.H. BHATIA,JJ. Dated: October 06, 2008. Dated: October 06, 2008. Dated: October 06, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner was elected to Gadhinglaj Municipal Council through an election conducted on 19/11/2006, the result of which was declared on 20/11/2006. This election came to be challenged by the respondent no.1 solely on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to be elected as she had not completed 21 years of age on the date of filing nomination papers. The District Judge, who is the Election Authority, framed various issues for adjudication and one of the issues which was crucial was, whether the Opponent No.1 on 28/10/2006 i.e. on :2: the date of filing nomination form as a candidate for Ward No.4 of Gadhinglaj Municipal Council, had completed 21 years of her age. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not completed 21 years of age as on 28/10/2006. In this connection he took note of the documents which were produced by the parties before him. The respondent no.1, who has challenged the election of the petitioner, placed on record the extract of admission register from the High School in which the petitioner had been a student, the school leaving certificate, the general register from Shree Swami Vivekanand Sanstha, Kolhapur and the said extracts were proved by the Head Master and the relevant staff of the school. The District Judge also took a note of extract from birth and death register of a girl namely Vaishali, who is the sister of the petitioner. It also took note of the marriage extract of the petitioner and also various other documents. These records, accordingly to the learned Judge, were clinching to show that the petitioner had not completed 21 years of age as on the relevant date. Some evidence was also produced by the petitioner :3: which the learned Judge had considered and taken note of it. Since this court is hearing the writ petition, it cannot be in a position to reappreciate the evidence appreciated by the learned District Judge. We have found that on the basis of the evidence, perhaps, this was the only conclusion which could have been drawn. . For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (J.H. Bhatia, J.) (J.H. Bhatia, J.) (J.H. Bhatia, J.) (Bilal Nazki,J.) (Bilal Nazki,J.) (Bilal Nazki,J.)