1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.967 OF 2008 Samadhan Gangaram Utekar .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.P.Sabban for petitioner Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for respondent No.4. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7th March 2008 P.C. . This is a petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division on 15th January 2008 rejecting petitioner’s appeal which was directed against 2 the order of the Additional Collector, Raigad on 13th August 2007. 2. Complaint of Nitin Dasavate who is respondent No.5 in this petition is that the petitioner who was at the relevant time a member of Group G.P. Mangaon has incurred disqualification and cannot continue in office by virtue of becoming father of the third child. Inviting the attention of the authorities to section 14(J-1) read with explanation thereto, it was urged that the petitioner be declared as disqualified and his office should be deemed to have fallen vacant. 3. This complaint before the Collector resulted in adverse order against the petitioner which has been confirmed by the Commissioner. 4. Mr.Sabban’s argument is that, true it is that the petitioner became father of a child 3 Sarvesh on 7th March 2007 but he was not the third child. The petitioner had two daughters earlier but his second daughter has been given in adoption to Kishore Lokhande and Sunita Lokhande. Adoption deed was produced so also affidavits of Kishore and Sunita. Further case is that adoption deed is not required to be registered in law, yet, the same has been disbelieved. 5. The Commissioner has found that the deed is not registered and the affidavits of the parents who are now the father and mother of said Sania allegedly are suspicious, as they have been filed during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner. According to authorities below, this is all an after thought. 6. After having perused the petition and the annexures thereto, I am of the view that the Commissioner ought to have perused and scrutinised each of these documents including the 4 adoption deed and should have also granted liberty to petitioner to place on record the affidavits, if any, of the witness thereto. In such circumstances and when the Commissioner relies upon Anganwadi register and the endorsement in the Sub-Development Officer’s record, the least that was expected that the petitioner was given an opportunity to meet the contents thereof. 7. In my view, for this reason it is necessary to remand the matter back to the Commissioner. Additional Commissioner’s order dated 15th January 2008 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to him for being decided afresh without being influenced by the earlier observations but bearing in mind the provisions of section 14(J-1) and explanation thereto and the mischief that was sought to be remedied but at the same time, taking into consideration all documents pertaining to the 5 adoption. Parties to appear before the Commissioner on 26th March 2008 and the Commissioner to decide the matter within four weeks thereafter. Till the Commissioner decides the matter, purely as an adhoc measure, without in any manner conferring any right on the petitioner, the petitioner my be allowed to attend the meeting of Group G.P. Petition disposed of. Needless to state that the Commissioner will also hear respondent original complainant. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)