-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1899 OF 2010 Rajan Vishnu Raul. ..Petitioner. Versus Chief Administrative Officer, ZP, Sindhudurg & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. B. D. Joshi i/b Mr. Neel Helekar and Ms. Anjali Helekar for the petitioner. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : March 25, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. By the order dated 29th April 2009, the additional Collector, Sindhudurg disqualified the petitioner to hold the post of Member, Grampanchayat Madkhol under section 14(j)(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. This order is confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division on 26th November 2009 and therefore the present petition. 2, The petitioner got elected as member of the grampanchayat, Madkhol in a general election held on 7th December 2007. Respondent no.4 filed a complaint before the Collector, Sindhudurg that the petitioner has three children and third child is born after cut off date 12th September 2001. This complaint was investigated by the Additional Collector. An opportunity of hearing was given to both sides. In the enquiry, the petitioner did not deny that he has three children and last one was born after 12th September 2001. -: 2 :- However, his contention is that his second daughter was given in adoption to his brother. The Additional Collector did not accept the petitioner's contention that he has only two issues and therefore disqualified the petitioner under the provisions of section 14(j)(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. This order was confirmed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division. 3. Upon hearing Mr. Joshi and having going through record, it is clear that the petitioner has not denied that he has given birth to three children and the last one is born after 12th September 2001. The contention of the Petitioner that his second daughter ought not to have been counted for the purpose of disqualification is without any merit inasmuch as no evidence about the said adoption is adduced either before the authorities below or before this Court. The contention that the petitioner has given his second daughter in adoption to his brother is clearly afterthought. After perusing the impugned order, I am of the view that the petitioner has incurred disqualification in view of the fact that he has given birth to third child after the cut off date, i.e., 12th September 2001. The petition is without any merit and same is therefore dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)