IS\ vs\ M W . •J|cqoa(^Q^i3t4^a STO aKS^ao'aB'IB^'fe'aIV;UI pB«ijOTKTO^adia^ imB:^3HOi:(Rad^w|»a( aoRon panssi .i0(3a[ioo yxnsia aip; '.lapLio a^ 8inss^i,ai<g^ -itBifeq^^ jo jsqinai^ SB papap Suraq j<g: inoRBsgiiBtibiap B SB pa(Kiado lo^ ipxqM IOOZ;"T"9Z afBp.go ifno aip .olgB As Q» -ai^oog-fr-g uo ii.ioq SBM jsaopRadaiBjo PCT3 ganp aq:( »-Bq»pim(u8 St0 no iiiawqinspitodsat pinp - jioitoanoo -|ni»sia 3'B AI »(nsB las iraaq Seq un»SBM:)fi&q3inR(i pBdaer 3q» jo jBqaia^i SB •noipoaia SIH •SOOE •rea^ aip ni •nids!8Ca :W4s?a 'utqs^i fBSmfwssd paSaap avg. jo jayaayi v SB patoqa SBA jaaoRpad aqj, 'r-o 'icini ia 's ^q P36sed SSAi.moo 3(0jo »PB)8(HMO[i<g aiiy, iQOOZ lacpnaoaa^p6 ) aaaa&Two •(•0'3)Jnd[sB{tg vw»sia'wfswfiOQ SCQ, •(•Q-0)TOasB{ig -10t.48ia 'unisBj^ ^oo[g '.ooggo iK>i|ia(g piiejaagoSiittuaiaaaiy, •(•0-0).mdsBiig -puqsta 'un»s^IfisVJ- 'B:103f* "a!*BH(A JQ tnspissg 'axnnnouSv -uc^Bdnooo 'sreai SB »noqep38B_tBS9SfVtOisBq^Bj/i uqg sfe^jo nos 'Bj3s[uo inBasejiad •jndsB[ig -vna^stQ 'untsewiisqB>I,t(BdaalSaCTWtS 33i(<y 'vtStfnf* -sSsfffAjoitraiassy 'saeaiCge »noqppaSe 'auoil 'qSaiS 3[BpBq^ uqg a^'B'i jo aog 'nyBXSBqg •e •E •I sfizspaoSsay snsjaA J3aot(R3d •epttB S -Oy S(U3p(lod83SJOJ.laiAAI,B[ptISiJ'BIIU3AIPiW5Rfl"-tW •.raot^pstS 3^ J<g a)B30Apv 'unpBqg SefBSfi •jw T;0*aiBA»i|"^ -8 »»>snp•.tp)] g[q,T(OH : ijanaa s^h*I8 GOO€P>6S09 'ON ttORR9d^uM andsvna w Hav€>suj»HHa.io.lanoo HOIH M In fhis writ petitton it was contended by learaed couasel for fhe petitfctner quite strenuousfy fhat fhe District CtoBector did rmt gwe any opportunity to proive lus case fhat fhe thud chfld was ia fact bom on 10.1.2001, wenbcfore fhe cut ofFdate 26.1.2001 and what is aUeged against hau to thc contcagr is aa iiK»nect statennent Tbeie is absolutefy no inaterial placed before the Gourt to show that the petitiotier inade request to the Distiict Coltector to ff»e him opportunity to adduce endencc ia support ofhfacaseand thc district Golfcctor dcclincd the opportuaaily, The District CoBcctor was not expcctal tb invite tfae pctitionerto prove his case by evidexrce. Ifttie District Coltector were to decline oppottuuuty to fhe petitioner to adducc evidence, certaualy ttus Court would have sfcpped-ia under Articte 226 ofthe Constitution ofladia aad corrected the wrongdoiBg, but, this is iiot fhe case in this pctition. Seccndly, the District Gtollcctor fortaed opuuon <ai fhe basis of eertifieate fasued by tbe Kotwar.and tiietcfore, his findmg cannot be cOTidcmned as fa-ratiDBaI or the one not b^ed onevidence.In fhat view of thc laatter, I do t»t fiiul any inerit ia this wait petition aad it is Axoidingtjr dismjsscd. No, costs. Sd/- Chief Justice b^cui liiil