1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7442 OF 2008 Smt. Sumitra w/o Devidas Bhaware, R/o-Dhanora Banjara, Tq-Sengaon, District-Hingoli. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) Zilla Parishad, Hingoli, Through its Chief Executive Officer, 3) The Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Panchayat), Zilla Parishad, Hingoli, 4) The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Chid Development Scheme, Sengaon, District-Hingoli, 5) Smt. Sitabai w/o Sheshrao Bhopale, R/o-Dhanora Banjara, Tq-Sengaon, District-Hingoli. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.R. Sonwalkar Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Shri. Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL, J. DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appointment of the Petitioner as Anganwadi Madatnis was cancelled by the Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Sengaon, District-Hingoli. The said order was challenged in Appeal by the Petitioner Smt. Sumitra Devidas Bhaware. The Appeal was heard by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and by the Judgment and order dated 21st October, 2008, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed. 3. The learned counsel Shri Talekar submits that once a domicile certificate was issued, it does not get automatically cancelled. There was good evidence in favour of the Petitioner to demonstrate that the Petitioner was resident of village Dhanora, at which place Anganwadi Madatnis was to discharge her duties. He further submitted that in view of the available 3 evidence, the Divisional Commissioner committed error in rejecting the Appeal of the Petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for Respondent No.5 - Smt. Sitabai w/o Shehsrao Bhopale, submitted that the certificates were produced by the Petitioner at a later point of time. The Sarpanch who issued earlier certificate in favour of the Petitioner, had resiled from the earlier stand. According to the counsel for Respondent No.5, the Petitioner was resident of village Karanji which is supported by list of voters and the documents showing that husband of the Petitioner obtained loan from the institution falling in the jurisdictional area of village Karanji. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents placed on record and I have also gone through the impugned orders. The Divisional Commissioner has exhaustively dealt with the issue of entitlement of the Petitioner on the ground of she being resident of village Dhanora. From the evidence placed before the Divisional Commissioner, the Divisional Commissioner 4 reached conclusion that the Petitioner failed to establish that she was resident of village Dhanora. I find that the Divisional Commissioner reached the conclusion by adopting sound reasons on the available evidence. I do not notice any error in the view adopted by the Divisional Commissioner while confirming the order passed by the Child Development Project Officer. 6. In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, I do not find that the Petitioner had made out any case for consideration of this Writ Petition. The Petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/NOV09/wp7442.08