SSK/21 1 WP.378.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.378 OF 2011 Shri Vyankatesh Sahebrao More ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. M. S. Karnik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. Sharad Wakchare for respondent no.6. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 8TH MARCH, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Karnik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rayrikar, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 and Mr. Wakchare for respondent no.6. 2. The petitioner got elected as a member of Village Panchayat – Shirasgaon in General Election which was held in the month of May, 2010. The respondent no.6 filed dispute application before the Additional District Collector challenging the election of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under section 14 (1) (j-1) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (in short “the said Act”). The respondent no.3- SSK/21 2 WP.378.11 Additional District Collector after hearing the petitioner and respondent no.6 concluded that the petitioner has begotten four children i.e. on 5th October, 1999, 7th June, 2003, 9th January, 2006 and 5th July, 2009 respectively. In view of the fact that the petitioner gave birth to 3rd and 4th child after introduction of Section 14(1) of the said Act he was held disqualified to remain member of the Village Panchayat-Shirasgaon. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 after hearing the petitioner confirmed the order of respondent no.3 and therefore, the present petition. 3. Mr. Karnik, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has given birth to the first three children. He, however, submitted that the evidence regarding birth of the 4th child on 5th July, 2009 cannot be accepted. In any case, the petitioner has given birth to the 1st child in the year 1999, and thereafter, he has begotten two children after 12th September, 2001 i.e. after the introduction of provisions of Section 14(1)(j-1) of the said Act. The petitioner, therefore, is rightly disqualified. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)