Tt.Tn lliOl PETITIO? T ^ . - ^ • • T JNanctii Lal Navafc. 7T7!T^£:'i"TTO k'TERSI State ofChhattisgam & Others. ost fbr order on /^ ''"April, 20( Pos ). Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge >B «ne«uwEuyfaa&SHl!3SH^iff^m UaiBilUyBSftl.WASBfflCTB JUSTICi [OT] !080of200' PETITIONER A'%^_.^A 'k.s'-.^l^^l^ A .C Nandii Lal Navaic. S/o, Shri Chiimru Kara Ased aoout 2is vears. K/o. Villaae Khaoari Tahsil-Pamsarh. Distt.-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WJ ¥J-..-. : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Tlirough: The Secretary, Department of Panchavat D.K.S. Bfaawan. Kaipiir (C.tj.) ':. The Director- Panchayat Chhattisgarh. Raipur (C.G.) i. The Collector, Janiair-Cfaamoa Distt. - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) .. Smt. Anarbai W/0. Shvam Ratan. Aged about 40 years, (Sarpanch) Gram Panchayat Khapari, R/0. /"ijl?i O'fa ' 1?"h S^^"'*^ T^ ll^tl Village: Khapari, Tahsil Pamsarh, Distt. Janjgir-Ci iT: n) '<-/. 'I^J . .j mpa Present: Shri P.K.Patel. Advoc.ate fof the oetitioner. Ku. Deepali Pandey, Pa&el Lawyer fbr the State 7 ,.^£-,T-i^<~!^^^4-^ 1 +^ ^ i cspUiAUd-ii;; 1 IU J'. Shri Hemast Kesharwani, Advocate fer respondsnt no.4 / caveator. (Passed on /J1*f day ofApril- 2007) Y this petitioii uader Article 226 of the Constitution. the petitioner impugiies the order dated 13.03.207 passed by the Directo: Pacchayat, Chhatnsearli in Appeal Ca.se No. 12/A-89(235/2006-0 whereunder it was held that the third child ofthe resDondent no. was born on 29.12.2000. Thus, the appeal filed by respondent no. 4 was allowed. 2, The facts in nutshell are tliat the respondent no.' 4, elected Sa.rpaEc}2 of Gram PaHchavat Khapri, is having thrse living children. According to the petitioner, who is aa elected panch, t2ie third child was boni oa 29.11.2001 after 26.01.2001. thus the -I;r. -f r,, responaent no. 4 Eiecame disaualiDed under provisions ot section 36(1 )(m) of The Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1°93 ('hereinafter referred to as "the Adhinivam, 1993). The r^ „. 'S1f . :olisctor, in a.H application nied bv tiie petatsoner. came to tlie coHCiusion that the tliird child ofthe respoadent no. 4 was born on 29.11.2001. Thus, respondent EO. 4 was disqualiiied under the provisioas ofSub Section 3 ofSection 36 ofthe Adhiniyam, 1993. In an appsal filed by the respondent no, 4, the Director, Panchayat, after havins sxamined all tiie facts of the case. 'same to tl'ie conclusion that ths third child was born on 29.12.2000. 3. Bsing aggrisved, the petitioner has filed this petition 021 the ground thal: the respondent no. 2 has wrongly believsd ths birth certificate issiied bv the Chief Executive Officer. Nasar Panchavat Baloda and the statements made bv the other villasers. The Birtn Certincate issued bv the Poiice Station. Pamsarh was wrongly disbelieved. 4. On perusal of ths pieadings and documents appended thereto, it a.Dnears that tfae Collsctor has Droceeded on tne basis ofcertificate SiEE iilAto&riBt^i^KAg^a&ifei^te^E^KE^^^^^fflMS^i^MS^'taawK^tsas'^^ ^s^j^^^S^^sssisvsast^^s^s^s^&ss^ Amit. issued by the Polics Station, Pamgarh supported by the report of Kotwar to hold that the third son ofthe respondent no. 4 was born on29.il,2000. Under the scheiBe, Police Station has nojurisdiction to testify the birth of a child. The respondeat no. 2, Director, panchayat, has riehtly relie'd on the certifica.te issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Paiichayat, Baloda. The Nagar panchavat is the comoetent authoritv to record tse date of birth and death of a person living within the territorial jurisdiction of Nagar Pancliayat. It was furtfler fouad that the report submitted bv the Kotwar is not clear as there was over-writinB. Thus. no exceptioa could be taken to the findings recorded by ths respoadent no. 2. Director. Panc.havat. f-^ _ -._ - i^ 5, lt is weil settled prmejple ot Jaw toat tnis Court, wnile exereising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Iiidia, has limited jurisdiction to the extent of reviewiiig the case in the event, there is nerversitv. irregularin' in the oroce.ss ofdecisioii. EOt in the .i~s f2,.'^-t C'tf^t^ ltC?>1t US^'i.&j.l-Ul it.SE/li-. 6. Ia view of the jbregoing. the petition dsserves to be and is ^iismissed. No order as to costs.<> Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge iB u