1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8143 OF 2009 Shri Gulabsing S/o. Rubji Padavi, Age __ years, Occ. Agri, R/o. Khapar, Tq. Akkalkuwa District Nanded. .. petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Rural Development Department, Mantrallaya, Mumbai. 2] The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3] The Collector, Nandurbar, District Nandburbar. 4] Shri Laxman Kashiram Vadile, Age major, Occ. Agri R/o. Khapar, Tq. Akkalkuwa District Nandurbar. .. Respondents. --- Mr. A.B. Girase,Advocate for petitioner. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.4 Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 6TH MAY, 2010. ORAL ORDER :- 2 1] Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2] The petitioner is raising exception to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division Nasik, rejecting the appeal tendered by the petitioner raising objection to the continuation of the respondent No.4 herein, as an elected member of the Village Panchayat on the grounds enumerated under Section 14 of the Bombay Village Panchayat act. An objection was raised by the petitioner before the Collector, contending that a child was born to the respondent No.4, after the cut off dated i.e. 12th September, 2001. Initially, the objection was entertained by the Collector and the respondent No.4 was declared ineligible for continuing as the member of the village panchayat. The order passed by the Collector was subjected to challenge by the present respondent No.4 before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, after hearing the respective contentions of the parties was pleased to remit the matter back. After remand of the matter, the Collector, after considering the rival contentions, again confirmed the initial order and declared the respondent No.4 as ineligible to continue as member of the village panchayat. The said order was again subjected to challenge by the respondent No.4 before the Commissioner by presenting an appeal, which came to be heard and disposed of by the Additional Commissioner, by allowing the same and setting aside the order passed by the Collector. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner, during the second round of litigation is subjected to challenge in this petition. 3 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the record in respect of certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, in the prescribed Form No.6, under Rule 8 of the Birth and Deaths Registration Act, 1961. The name of the child born on 5/6/2002 at village Khapar is recorded as “Munni”. Copy of the birth and death register maintained by the Primary Health Center Khapar for the month of June, 2002 is also placed on record at Exhibit “C” at page 24 of the compilation. Entry No.2 in the extract is in respect of birth of a child by name Munni on 5th June, 2002 and the name of the mother is recorded as Lata Laxman Kashirao Wadile. Reliance is also placed on certificate issued by the Registrar in respect of birth of a child by name “Jayesh” on 6/6/2001 and the date of birth is recorded as 5/9/2007. According to the counsel appearing for the petitioner, the child was born to the respondent No.4 after the cut off date i.e. on 5th June, 2002 and initially, the name is recorded as Munni, however, erroneously. It is contended that a male child is born to the respondent No.4 after the cut off date and there is ample record in that regard. 4] Counsel appearing for the respondent has controverted the contentions raised by the petitioner contending that the date of birth of the child born is in fact, 6/6/2001 i.e. before the cut off date and an entry in respect of the birth of a child by name Jayesh is recorded in the relevant record. In order to point out the inconsistencies in the documents on which reliance is placed by the petitioner, my attention was invited to the entires recorded in the register maintained by the Village Panchayat, Khapar, 4 annexed at Page 24 of the compilation, on which heavy reliance is placed by the petitioner and it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the said entries cannot be relied upon for the reason that entry at Sr.No.2 is in respect of birth of a child, by name “Munni” alleged to have been born to the wife of the respondent No.4 on 5/6/2002, whereas, the entry at Sr. Nos. 3,4 and 5 are of subsequent date i.e. 6/6/2002, 8/6/2002and 14/6/2002. The entry at Sr. No.6 in the register again bears the date as 5/6/2002, whereas, entry at Sr.No.7 also pertains to the dated 7/6/2002. . The learned counsel for the respondent has also invited my attention to the photo copy of the record in the form of Birth Register maintained at the Primary Health Center, Khapar, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner. The register maintained at Primary Health Center at Khapar in respect of the birth of children is the basis for issuance of the certificate by the Medical Officer, certifying the date of birth of the child of the respondent No.4, to be 5th June, 2002. There is an entry in respect of birth of a child, by name Munni and the date of birth is rerecorded as 5/6/2002, whereas, at Serial Nos. 6 and 7 again there are entries of the previous dates. Although in the hospital record, birth of a child of one Jyoti Pravin Choudhari whose name appears at Sr.No.3 maintained by the Primary Health Center , Khapar is recorded as 5/6/2002, whereas, copy of extract annexed at Exhibit “C” on which reliance is placed by the petitioner, records date of birth of child of said Jyoti Pravin as 6/6/2002. The same is the case in respect of the other entries 5 recorded in the register. Thus, there are inconsistencies in the register on which reliance is placed by the petitioner. . The counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has also placed reliance on the school leaving certificate of the child of the respondent No.4 wherein, the date of birth of the child is recorded as 6/6/2001. Thus, it transpires that a male child is born to the respondent No.4 prior to the cut off date and wife of the respondent No.4 had not given birth to any female child after the cut off date, as contended by the petitioner. 5] Considering the evidence in the form of documents placed on record, I am of the opinion that the Additional Commissioner, Nasik was justified in allowing the appeal and reversing the order passed by the Collector. Considering the finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority, no interference is warranted in the petition. The petition is devoid of substance. Hence, the same is rejected. [R.M. BORDE,J.] Grt/-