1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5065 of 2010 (Kailash Limbaji Kheole v. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri U.A. Gosavi, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri D.P. Thakre, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 14 th June, 2011 1. The petitioner has been disqualified from the position of Member and ultimately Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chandori (Bujruk). He was elected as Member of the Gram Panchayat in the elections held on 7-10-2007 and was further elected as Up-Sarpanch on 13-11-2007. An application was moved by the respondent No.3 to the Collector, Gondia, on 16-9- 2009 pointing out that the third child is born to the petitioner on 1-8-2009 and hence the petitioner has incurred the disqualification, as contemplated by Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. In support of her claim, a 2 birth certificate dated 18-8-2009 issued by the Municipal Council, Tiroda, was placed on record by the respondent No.3, showing the child to have taken the birth on 1-8-2009. The extract of the birth register was also placed on record. One Jorawarsing Pratapsinh Pawar, working as Incharge Health Inspector in the Municipal Council, Tiroda, was also examined. The petitioner had filed his reply opposing the claim made in the application and had also examined himself. 2. The Additional Collector, Gondia, after taking into consideration the evidence placed on record, had recorded the finding that the child, namely Babi Kailash Kheole, was born to the petitioner on 1-8-2009 and hence he has incurred the disqualification. 3. The Appellate Authority, namely the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, has concurred with the finding recorded by the Additional Collector by giving certain additional reasons. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, I have gone through the oral as well as documentary 3 evidence placed on record and also the orders passed by the Authorities below. The primary document showing the birth of the child is the entry in the register of birth maintained by the Municipal Council, Tiroda. On the basis of this entry, a certificate dated 18-8-2009 has been issued. Both these documents have been proved by the Incharge Health Inspector, Municipal Council, Tiroda. He has, however, admitted that there is inconsistency in the name of the father of the child recorded in the birth certificate and that recorded in the register of birth. He has also admitted that such mistake has also occurred in the name of the mother of the child. The petitioner is the resident of Chandori (Bujruk). The primary document, i.e. the entry in the birth register, shows the name of the petitioner in column No.4. The place of the residence of the mother of the child is shown as Chandori. The Authorities below have recorded the finding that the petitioner has failed to dislodge the evidence in the form of entry in the birth register and has further recorded the finding that it is the petitioner who has got the name of the mother changed in the birth certificate. The Appellate Authority has also taken into consideration the other aspects and has recorded the finding that the third child was born to the petitioner on 1-8-2009. The 4 findings are based upon the evidence placed on record and sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence cannot be gone into in this petition. Hence, no interference is called for in the orders passed by the Authorities below. 5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge PDL