( 1 ) wp3357.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3357 OF 2011 Tulshiram s/o. Savleram Chumbhale Age. 46 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Velapur, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner VERSUS 1. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. .. Respondents 2. The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar, District – Ahmednagar. 3. Gram Panchayat, Velapur, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Gram Sevak. 4. Sau. Pushpa Vilas Bhagat Age. 34 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Velapur, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. - Ahmednagar. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.3; Mr. S.B. Gorde Patil, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 07.10.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order ( 2 ) wp3357.11 dated 25th February, 2011, passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, in Gram Panchayat Appeal No.2 of 2011. Respondent No.4 was the appellant before the learned Commissioner and her appeal was allowed. 3. The facts leading to this litigation in short can be narrated as under :- 4. Respondent No.4 got elected in Gram Panchayat election, which was held on 22.08.2010. The petitioner raised objection after said election, alleging that respondent No.4 stood disqualified because she has more than two children and that her children were born after the cut-off date of 12th September, 2001. In order to prove this, he placed on record a birth certificate issued by Gram Sevak,Velapur. A copy of this certificate is produced on record at page No.30. In this certificate it is mentioned that respondent No.4 delivered a male child on 12th August, 2008, at village Velapur and the birth was registered in the Register kept under the provisions of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 and the rules made thereunder on 16th August, 2008. Respondent No. 4 since beginning stated that she did not deliver any child after 12th September, 2001, but admitted that she has three children prior to cut-off date. The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar, having regard to this certificate (page No.30) held that the ( 3 ) wp3357.11 appellant/complainant had proved that respondent No.4 had delivered 4th child after 12th September, 2001 and held that respondent No.4 had stood disqualified and cancelled her membership to the Gram Panchayat. 5. Respondent No.4, then went before the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, in Appeal No. 2 of 2011. The learned Commissioner held that he would allow the appeal because the Additional Collector did not verify the correctness of the evidence that has come on record. 6. When the appeal was filed, respondent No.4 clearly stated in the appeal memo that the evidence brought on record was required to be verified and since such verification was not made by the Additional Collector, the judgment is vitiated. This ground was quite pertinent and the learned Commissioner could have used it for getting the crucial document referred to above (page No.30 – certificate dated 30.08.2008) as genuine. Unfortunately, neither respondent No.4 insisted on getting the certificate verified nor the learned Commissioner found it necessary to do it. Thus, respondent No.5 lost last opportunity to get the crucial evidence verified. The learned Additional Collector on the other hand very clearly stated in his judgment that he would accept this document because it is apparently issued by the competent authority. The Gram Sevak of the ( 4 ) wp3357.11 village is competent authority as per the provisions of sections 12/17 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 8/13 of the Maharashtra Birth and Death Registration Rules 2000. This finding of the Additional Collector, apparently is not incorrect. However, if a party challenges the genuineness of such certificate, need would arise for verifying the genuineness. In this case, respondent No.4 did not really expressed such need to get the certificate (page No.30) examined for its genuineness. She had ample opportunity first before the Collector and next before the Commissioner. She ought to have insisted before at-least the Commissioner that this certificate should be verified by calling the Register maintained by the Gram Sevak of the Gram Panchayat. Despite opportunity, thus if the respondent No.4 did not insist on such verification, it can easily be said that she herself was not sure whether she should succeed in proving the certificate (page No.30) as not genuine document. 7. Before I allow this writ petition, I must also make some comments on the manner in which the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner passed the impugned judgment/order. The learned Additional Divisional Commissioner did not mention even a single reason why he would hold that the learned Collector did not get the crucial document verified. He conveniently forgot the ( 5 ) wp3357.11 observations of the Additional Collector that the crucial document (page No.30) is apparently issued by the competent authority. If at all the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner thought that the matter could not have been decided without proper verification of the documents, he has not said as to why he himself should not get the document verified. He could have easily remanded the case back to the Trial Court. But as if he was in hurry to allow the appeal, he passed the impugned order allowing the appeal. By no stretch of possibility, this appeal could have been decided in this particular manner. I think the Secretary (Revenue Department) could take note of the manner in which this particular Officer has written this impugned judgment. 8. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The order passed by the Additional Collector is confirmed. Rule made absolute accordingly. 9. The request of learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.4 for keeping the effect of the order in abeyance is rejected. 10. Copy of this order should be sent to the Secretary (Revenue Department), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/OCT11/wp3357.11ok