HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3181 of 2008 Date : 08.11.2011 Between : Yerra Ramaswamy. …..Petitioner And Mallepally Anjaiah & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3181 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, challenging the judgment of the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Deverakonda, dated 13.02.2008, passed in O.P.No.11 of 2006. By the aforesaid judgment, the O.P. filed by the 1st respondent herein, is allowed and the election of petitioner as Sarpanch of Konda Bheemanpally village, is set aside. Elections to the grampanchayat of Konda Bheemanpally were held on 6th of August 2006, in which, the petitioner and respondents 1 to 5 were the contestants. The post of Sarpanch was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. In the said elections, the petitioner was declared elected as he secured highest number of votes among the contestants i.e. 885 votes. After election of petitioner as Sarpanch, the 1st respondent has questioned such election by filing O.P.No.11 of 2006 before the Election Tribunal i.e. Junior Civil Judge, Deverakonda, alleging that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Sarpanch in view of provision under Section 19(3) of the A.P. Pancyayat Raj Act, 1994. In the election petition, it was alleged that at the time of scrutiny of nominations, he has raised an objection stating that the petitioner is having more than two children and the 3rd son of the petitioner was born on 30th of May 1995 i.e. after the expiry of grace period as per the proviso under Section 19(3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as such, he is disqualified from contesting to the post of Sarpanch. When his objection was over- ruled, he approached the Election Tribunal seeking to set aside the election of the petitioner. Before the Election Tribunal, oral and documentary evidence was let in. On behalf of respondent No.1, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked. On behalf of petitioner herein, RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.R-1 was marked. Exs.X-1 to X-7 were marked through the witnesses. The Tribunal below, by discussing the oral and documentary evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the 3rd son of the petitioner herein was not born before 30th May 1995, and thus, allowed the application filed by the 1st respondent by setting aside the election of the petitioner. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that without recording the date of birth of the third child of the petitioner, the Tribunal has set aside the election of the petitioner. It is submitted that though there is valid documentary evidence to show that the 3rd child of the petitioner was born on 20th March 1995, the Tribunal, without appreciating such evidence on record, has erroneously came to the conclusion that the 3rd child of the petitioner was born after 30th May 1995 and set aside the election. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, I have also closely examined the findings recorded by the Tribunal in O.P.No.11 of 2006. In this case, it is to be noticed that on behalf of 1st respondent/writ petitioner, Ex.P-4, a bonafide certificate issued by the Upper Primary School of Konda Bheemanpally, is placed on record. The Headmaster of the school was also examined on behalf of 1st respondent/writ petitioner. In Ex.P-4, it is clearly recorded that the date of birth of the 3rd child of the petitioner by name Ashoka Chakravarthi, is 12.06.1996. The said document is also proved by examining the Headmaster of the school. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for petitioner on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and others[1], wherein, it was held to the effect that often persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school, so that later in life, he would have an advantage when seeking public service. But in the case on hand, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has never disputed the correctness of the entries made in the school register of the 3rd child of the petitioner. In the absence of taking such plea, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner would not render any help to him. Further, it is to be noticed in this case that though reliance is placed on the birth certificate issued by the Registrar under The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, a perusal of such certificate shows that it was issued based on the certification made by the Government civil hospital, Deverakonda. It is to be noticed that the Tribunal below, on appreciation of documentary evidence on record, has disbelieved Exs.X- 6 and X-7, by recording a finding that in Ex.X-6 register, an entry was inserted at a later stage in between serial numbers 111 and 112 stating that the wife of 1st respondent/writ petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 20.03.1995, and similarly in Ex.X-7 also, an entry was inserted at a later stage in between serial numbers 154 and 155, stating that the wife of 1st respondent/writ petitioner gave birth to a male child on 20.03.1995. Therefore, this Court is of the view that though some documents are sought to be projected to show that the date of birth of the 3rd son of petitioner is prior to 30th May 1995, in view of the sound reasons recorded by the Tribunal below, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal and it cannot be said that such findings are either perverse, illegal or contrary to the evidence on record. A perusal of the impugned order shows that by giving weight to the bonafide certificate which is marked on behalf of 1st respondent/writ petitioner under Ex.P-4, which is also proved by examining the Headmaster of the school, findings are recorded by the Tribunal below that the date of birth of the petitioner’s 3rd child was after 30th of May 1995, which is a disqualification under Section 19(3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. For the aforesaid reasons, and in view of the findings recorded by the Court below, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by correct appreciation of facts on record. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th November 2011 ajr [1] AIR 1965 SC 282