1 WP No. 5167.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5167 OF 2011 Raosaheb S/o Govind Karle ..PETITIONERS. VERSUS Keru S/o Shankar Deokar & Others ..RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.M. Kakade, Advocate for petitioner Mr. N.C. Garud, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Mr. K.B. Choudhari, AGP for the respondent /State CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE:- 18th July, 2011. PER COURT: Heard, Shri Kakade, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Garud, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. The only point raised in the present Writ Petition is that a son born from a single 2 WP No. 5167.11 delivery after the cut of date would be protected by virtue of second proviso to Section 14(J-1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 3. Shri Kakade, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cut of date is 13-09-2000 and the one year lapses on 12-09-2001. During the said interregnum period the petitioner’s wife was carrying and delivered a child on 7-05-2002. The period of one year as stated in second proviso to Section 14(J-1) would be from the end of the period of one year from the date of commencement, and that would be the proper interpretation of the second proviso to Section 14(J-1). Shri Kakade further contends that the harmonious construction will have to be given to the second proviso, more particularly when it deals with the question of disqualification of a member. 4. Shri Garud, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, supports the Judgment and states that the second proviso to Section 14(J-1) is clear and does not admit of any other 3 WP No. 5167.11 interpretation. 5. When the words of the statute are un- ambiguous and clear and do not admit any other interpretation, then the literal meaning has to be given to the words used in the statute. Second proviso to Section 14(J-1) reads as under :- “ Provided further that, a child or more than one child born in a single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification mentioned in this clause “ Bare perusal of the said provision, it is explicitly clear that the period of a child born from single delivery contemplated is period of one year from the date of such commencement i.e. from the date of commencement of the said provision. If the child would have been delivered within one year from the date of commencement i.e. 13-09-2000 then the case of the petitioner would have been covered by the second 4 WP No. 5167.11 proviso to Section 14(J-1). In the present case child is born on 07-05-2002 i.e. almost 8 months after the lapse of period of one year from the date of commencement. 6. In the light of above, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 14(J-1). In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, with no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] SDM*July11