1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 695/2009 (Roshni Raja Waghmare VERSUS State of Maharashtra & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri D.B. Patel, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1 & 2. Shri N.G. Dhage, counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 17, 2009. None for the petitioner. Heard Shri Dhage, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5 and Shri Patel, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 & 2. I have perused both the impugned orders dated 06.09.2008 and 20.01.2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur and the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, respectively. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kapsi. The Additional Collector, Nagpur, by an order dated 06.09.2008, disqualified 2 the petitioner under the provisions of Section 14(1) (J-1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, as a third child was born to the petitioner on 14.12.2001, after the cut off date. It was the case of the petitioner before the authorities that the third child was born to the petitioner on 14.04.2001 and not on 14.12.2001 as claimed by the respondents. Both the authorities, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, found that the third child was born to the petitioner on 14.12.2001 and, therefore, the petitioner was liable to be disqualified under the provisions of Section 14(1)(J-1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. While recording the aforesaid finding, both the authorities considered the birth certificate, which was issued by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Gumthala, which was also based on the relevant entry in the register maintained at the Anganwadi. 3 Since the finding recorded by both the authorities is based on the material on record and is a finding of fact, the same cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE