1 W.P. No.6644/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6644 OF 2010 Sambhaji s/o Kondiba Wandhekar Age 38 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Raghu Hivre, Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik 2. The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar. 3. Dyandeo s/o Piraji Narwade, Age 42 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Raghu Hivre, Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. 4. The Village Development Officer, Grampanchayat, Raghu-Hivre, Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri N.V. Gaware, Advocate for the petitioner Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri V.M. Lomte, Advocate for respondent No.3 ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 29th July, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2 W.P. No.6644/2010 2. This Writ Petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 22.6.2010, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Grampanchayat Appeal No.35/2010. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the certificate at Page 22 of the compilation of writ petition is issued without following the provisions of Sections 20 and 22 of the Births, Death & Marriages Registration Act, 1886. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to clause 7 of the said certificate and submitted that the column in respect of “Who has given information and address” is blank. In fact, as per the provisions of Section 20 of the said Act, the father, mother or occupant of the house at the relevant time when child is born, and medical practitioner can be informant in such cases. However, it appears that, the Peon has informed the Grampanchayat and accordingly the certificate is issued. Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner, such certificate is not valid since it is not in accordance with provisions of Sections 20 and 22 of the said Act. He further submitted that, the Additional Commissioner, without calling for record and proceedings from the Additional 3 W.P. No.6644/2010 Collector or from the Grampanchayat, has entertained the appeal and reversed the findings of the Additional Collector. If the Additional Commissioner wanted to reverse the findings of the Additional Collector, in that case, the Additional Commissioner should have called record from both the Grampanchayats or from the office of the Deputy Collector and then only appeal should have been adjudicated finally. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Gangadhar s/o Gonduram Tadme Vs. Trimbak s/o Govindrao Akingire & ors. [ 2005 BCI 93 ], and submitted that, the judgment and order impugned in this petition is not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the certificate at Page 22 is genuine one, which is issued in accordance with relevant rules for issuing such certificate. He invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner, and submitted that the certificate at Page 14 of the compilation of this writ petition is issued afterthought, since there was attempt by rival group of the petitioner to remove him from the post of Sarpanch. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for 4 W.P. No.6644/2010 respondent No.3, this Court may not interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have given due consideration to the contentions advanced by the counsel for the respective parties. In my opinion, the judgment and order impugned in this petition is required to be set aside only on the ground that the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik has passed the impugned judgment and order without even looking to the record of both the Grampanchayats. From the perusal of the said judgment, it appears that, no record and proceedings were called for even from the office of the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar. If at all the Additional Commissioner wanted to reverse the findings recorded by the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar, in that case, it was incumbent upon the Additional Commissioner to call for record and proceedings from the office of the Additional Collector, and if necessary, from the Grampanchayats and then adjudicate the appeal finally. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable. The same is quashed and set aside. The Grampanchayat Appeal No.35/2010 is restored to its original file. The Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik to 5 W.P. No.6644/2010 hear the appeal afresh and decide the same after giving opportunity to the parties and after summoning the record from the office of the Additional Commissioner and also if necessary, from both the Grampanchayats. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik is directed to hear the appeal as expeditiously as possible and take the final decision within three months from today. The petition is allowed to above extent and same stands disposed of. Rule made absolute in above terms. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. )