19.07wp.3397.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3397 /2011 (Vilas Yadav Hambre vs. Additional Commissioner and others ) ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 19th July, 2011. Heard Mr P S Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner by which the order dated 9.12.2010 passed by the Addl. Collector disqualifying the petitioner as a Member of the Gram Panchayat, Varah-Jehangir came to be confirmed. The petitioner herein was elected as a Member of the Gram Panchayat in the elections held some time in the year 2010. The respondent no.2 herein filed an application before the Addl. Collector for disqualification of the petitioner on the ground that on the date when the petitioner filed his nomination form, he has suppressed the fact that his third child was born after 12th September, 2001 - the cut off date in terms of the amendment to the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. It was the case of the respondent no.2 that the birth date of the children of the petitioner were as follows: 1) Mangesh Vilas Hambre .. 4.3.1997 2) Bhagwat Vilas Hambre ..20.7.2000 3) Sheetal Vilas Hambre ..25.10.2001 The petitioner filed his reply to the said application and inter alia contended that his wife has undergone vascectomy on 18.11.2000 and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the third child was born after 12.9.2001. In respect of the entries in the school record on which reliance was placed by the 19.07wp.3397.11.odt 2 respondent no.2, the petitioner clarified that the same could not be relied upon because the said entries has been made by his mother who is illiterate. It was the case of the petitioner in his reply that the record of the Primary Health Centre, Kawtha be called for prior to the decision being rendered on the application. The Additional Collector considered the application filed by the respondent no.2 and by his order dated 9.12.2010 allowed the same by recording a finding of fact that the third child of the petitioner i.e. Ku. Sheetal was born after the cut off date. The Addl. Collector considered the material on record and came to the conclusion that it could not be said that the third child of the petitioner was born prior to the cut off date. The petitioner had sought to produce birth certificate dated 20th March 2009 issued by the Secretary Gram Panchayat, Pedgaon which he produced on 30th June, 2010. The Additional Collector insofar as the said certificate was concerned, recorded that the said certificate was a fabricated document produced by the petitioner to come out of the clutches of the provisions of the said Act. The Additional Collector held that in view of the said fabricated document produced by the petitioner, the aspect of the petitioner’s wife having undergone vascectomy on 18.11.2000 was also questionable. It is required to be noted that the petitioner did not produce any material to indicate that the third child was born prior to the cut off date, save and except the extract of the register in respect of the survey of the people below poverty line. The Additional Collector held that the information in the said register could not be relied upon as the said entries are made according to the information given by the persons in respect of whom the entries are made. The Addl. Collector, therefore, in the absence of any contra material being produced by the petitioner, reached the conclusion that the entries in the school record would have to be accepted and if that be so, the third child of the petitioner was obviously born after the cut off date i.e. 12th Sept.2001 and, therefore, allowed the application filed by the respondent no.2 and disqualified the petitioner on the ground of having a third child after the cut off date. Aggrieved by the said order dated 9.12.2010 passed by 19.07wp.3397.11.odt 3 the Addl. Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Addl. Commissioner, Amravati. The Addl. Commissioner Amravati reiterated the finding of the Addl .Collector and confirmed the order passed by the Addl. Collector by his order dated 31.5.2011, which is impugned in the present petition. Having perused both the orders, in my view, the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below in the context of the cut off date i.e.12th September, 2001 cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE sahare