THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19987 OF 2009 DATED 9TH JUNE, 2011 BETWEEN M.Venkataiah …Petitioner And The Election Tribunal-cum-1st Additional District Judge At Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19987 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner, the Sarpanch of Kondapur Village, Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, complained that the second respondent, who was elected the Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency Member from Kondapur, suffered disqualification under Section 19(3) read with Section 156(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1994’). Thereupon, the issue was referred to the I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar for decision in exercise of powers under Section 22 of the Act of 1994. The same was taken on file as P.R.O.P.No.1 of 2008 and by order dated 31.07.2009, the learned I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. Perusal of the order passed by the Court below reflects that the birth certificate (Ex.A.6) dated 19.11.2007, relied upon by the petitioner to prove that the second respondent had a third child after the cut off date prescribed in Section 19(3) of the Act of 1994, was eschewed from consideration on the ground that the petitioner failed to examine the actual officer who had issued the said certificate. The Court below also found fault with the petitioner for not examining the midwife who attended the delivery of the second respondent’s wife at the time of birth of the alleged third child. It is however to be noticed that Ex.A.6 was a certificate issued by the competent authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. Further, the petitioner had also examined the Tahsildar, Dhanwada, who deposed to the effect that the said certificate was issued by his predecessor. Once the certificate which was issued as per the statute by the competent authority was duly proved by examining the person presently holding the office, a presumption of validity would attach to such certificate under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It would therefore not be necessary to examine the actual officer who issued the said certificate. Such insistence would have the effect of negating the presumption of validity which is afforded to such official documents by law. The insistence by the Court below that the actual officer who issued the certificate should be examined is therefore without legal basis. Further, the Court below failed to enquire into the allegation levelled by the petitioner against the second respondent as to his having three children and as to whether the third child was born after the cut off date stipulated under Section 19(3) of the Act of 1994. This approach on the part of the Court below, when seized of a statutory obligation, cannot be accepted. Sri Praveen Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the second respondent, argued that the birth certificate (Ex.A.6) did not have any evidentiary value and relied upon the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court i n BHUKYA BUJJI v. BHUKYA SARASWATHI[1]. Perusal of the said Judgment however reflects that on the facts of that case, this Court had opined that the certificate therein which was issued by the Primary Health Centre on the basis of information collected by field staff and not on the basis of information furnished or given by the parents of the child could not be given primacy over the certificate issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. In the present case, the birth certificate (Ex.A.6) was one issued under the Act. In the absence of contrary evidence, the presumption would be that such certificate issued under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 by the competent authority is genuine and it is for those who deny such document to rebut this presumption. In the present case, that occasion did not arise as the Court below itself failed to attach any value to the certificate. In the normal circumstances, this Court would have been inclined to set aside the order passed by the Court below and remit the matter for enquiry afresh. It is however to be noticed that the term of the second respondent, who continued in office, is now coming to an end and is to expire within the month. Thus, no purpose would be served by adopting this course in the present case as the second respondent’s term is to expire shortly. This Court is however conscious of the fact that the petitioner’s allegation that the second respondent suffered disqualification on the birth of his third child may yet remain alive and may require to be resolved in an appropriate proceeding when the occasion arises. That being so, this Court sets aside the order dated 31.07.2009 in P.R.O.P.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, and more particularly the finding of the Court below that the birth certificate (Ex.A.6) cannot be considered on the ground that the Tahsildar who issued the same was not examined. The question as to whether the petitioner suffered disqualification on account of the birth of his third child is left open for adjudication if the need arises. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 9TH JUNE, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/O VGSR/PGS [1] 2003 (5) ALT 1 (DB)