1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.951 OF 2011. (NURSING D. RATHOD..VS..DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.V.Gawande, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V.A. Thakare, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 and 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 07, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Additional Collector, Amravati on 17.09.2010 as also the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati dated 14th January, 2011 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Collector and holding that the petitioner was rightly disqualified under the provisions of Section 14(j) of the Bombay Village Pancnayats Act. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that both the authorities have given due consideration to the various documents placed by the parties on record to hold that the fifth child was born to the petitioner on 05.11.2001. It is necessary to note that the birth certificate issued by the concerned department clearly shows that the fifth child was born to the petitioner on 05.11.2001 and in the school record also the birth date of Akash, the fifth child of the petitioner, was shown to be 05.11.2001. The case of the petitioner that the fifth child was born to the petitioner on 04.01.2001 and 2 the child could not have been born to the petitioner after a family planing operation was performed on his wife on 25th January, 2001, was rejected by both the authorities as it was possible to give birth to an issue even after a family planning operation. The authorities mainly relied on the birth certificate which was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2002 as also the school record of the child to hold that the fifth child was born to the petitioner after the cut off date, on 05.11.2001. Since the findings recorded by both the authorities are based on a proper appreciation of the documents on record, they call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..