1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. W.P.NO.3447 OF 2008. Ravindrakumar Varma. ...vs.. Ku.Rajani Thakare and ors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's order. orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.S.L.Kotwal, Adv. for the petitioner. Smt.Wasnik, AGP for respondents no.2 and 3. Coram : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 30th JUNE, 2009. Heard. This writ petition is preferred against the order passed by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division on 19/7/2008, whereby he confirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector on 28/1/2008. Respondent no.1 herein had filed the complaint purporting to be a complaint under Section 14(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1950. It was her contention that when the petitioner had contested the election in the year 2004 he had two children. It was contended by her 2 that after he was so elected as member of the Gram panchayat in the year 2004, a third child was born to him on 29/12/2006. It was contended therefore that the petitioner has incurred a disqualification under Section 14 of the said Act. The said complaint was heard by the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector found that a third child was born to the petitioner and he had negatived the contention of the petitioner that the third child that was born was that of his younger brother. Holding so, he disqualified the petitioner from holding office of the Sarpanch. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner after considering the evidence fond that the conclusion reached by the Additional Collector was not required to be interfered. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order. Mr.Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the third child that was born is not that of the petitioner and conclusions of 3 the authorities were not correct. I do not find any substance in the contention. The authorities below have considered the report submitted by Anganwadi Sevika. The report of Anganwadi Sevika clearly goes to show that the name of the petitioner’s wife was registered as a pregnant woman and it was also noted by Anganwadi Sevika that she had delivered the child on 29/12/2006. It was found by the Commissioner that no evidence has been tendered by the petitioner to disprove that fact or the report submitted by Anganwadi Sevika. I do not find that the authorities below had committed any error in relying upon the report of Anganwadi Sevika. There is no reason for Aganwadi Sevika to submit wrong or false report against the petitioner. In view of this, I do not find any perversity or impropriety in the order passed by the authorities below. There is no substance in the petition. It is dismissed. JUDGE. chute