HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.5237 of 2007 Date: November 9, 2011 Between: Harijan A. Chinna Kotaiah, S/o.Sri Poshanna, aged 39 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chityala village, Wanaparthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar District … Petitioner And Election Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the validity of the judgment rendered in Election O.P.No.18 of 2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, by which he has set aside the election of the petitioner as Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (for short ‘MPTC’) Chityala, Wanaparthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 2. Facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as under: Elections for MPTC, Chityala were held on 02.07.2006, in which the petitioner, 3rd and 4th respondents herein contested. At the time of scrutiny of nominations, there was an objection by the 3rd respondent alleging that the petitioner is disqualified under Section 19(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) to contest for the said post on the ground that he is having four children and the fourth child was born on 26.02.1996. In spite of such an objection, on the ground that no supporting material was filed, the said objection was overruled and the petitioner was allowed to contest. Having secured majority votes, the petitioner was elected for the post of MPTC, Chityala. 3. The election of the petitioner was questioned by the 3rd respondent herein, who is no other than his brother, by filing O.P.No.18 of 2006 before the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. In the said O.P., it was the case of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner is disqualified to contest as MPTC as much as his fourth child is born after the expiry of the grace period of one year as per proviso to Section 19(3) of the Act, which ended by 30.05.1995; as such his election is not valid. He also sought to declare him as elected, in the place of the petitioner. 4. Before the Tribunal below, 3rd respondent himself was examined as P.W.1, on his behalf P.Ws.2 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked. Petitioner himself was examined as R.W.2, on his behalf R.Ws.1 and 3 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked. On behalf of the Court, Ex.X.1 and X.2 were marked. 5. Having scrutinised the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal below, by the impugned order, has recorded a finding that the 3rd respondent herein has proved that the petitioner gave birth to a fourth child on 26.02.1996 and also recorded a finding that the petitioner was disqualified to contest for the post of MPTC in view of the provision under Section 19(3) of the Act. In the very order, 3rd respondent herein was declared elected in the place of the petitioner. 6. Elections to MPTC, Chityala, were held on 02.07.2006 and the tenure of elected member is five years. During the pendency of the writ petition, the tenure has come to an end and special officers were appointed for Mandal Parishads. In view of expiry of the tenure, the subject matter has become infructuous, but in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the 4th child of the petitioner was born on 26.02.1996, the same comes in the way of the petitioner for future elections; therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to make submissions to set aside the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the date of birth of the fourth child of the petitioner. 7. It is contended by Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that though sufficient evidence was let in to show that the fourth child of the petitioner was born on 22.05.1995, in spite of the same, by brushing aside the validity of the oral and documentary evidence, a finding is recorded that the fourth child of the petitioner was born on 26.02.1996, but not on 22.05.1995. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have also carefully gone through the entire text of the order of the Tribunal below. 9. On behalf of the 3rd respondent-petitioner, apart from oral evidence, Exs.P. 6 and 7, which are birth extracts of the third and fourth children of the petitioner, were filed. When such documents were objected that they are not certified copies with an endorsement as required under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, further certified copies were also filed under Exs.P.10 and P.11. Exs.P.10 and P.11 are substitutes for Exs.P.6 and P.7 with a valid endorsement endorsing the said documents as certified copies. Upon scrutiny of the said documents, it is amply clear that the fourth child of the petitioner was born on 26.02.1996, but not on 22.05.1995. In the said birth extracts, it is recorded that one Smt.Elishamma has attended to the delivery as midwife and she is no other than the sister-in-law of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and it is stated that she was working as midwife and attending to the deliveries of their family members. The petitioner tried to lead evidence to show that his fourth child was born in the year 1995 and his wife has delivered the last child in Vimochana hospital, which is being run by R.W.3, but it is to be noticed that there was a suggestion that R.W.3 was a member of Telugu Desam Party, on which ticket the petitioner has contested and the said R.W.3-Doctor had also contested on the ticket of Telugu Desam Party to the Parliament. The petitioner also filed document, Ex.R.2, a bona fide certificate issued by Rankers’ Concept School, but when the headmaster of the said school was examined as P.W.4, he has clearly stated that the date of birth of the fourth child of the petitioner was not shown in the admission form, but it was furnished and recorded in the admission register on 18.09.2006, i.e. after the elections were held on 02.07.2006. In view of the clinching oral and documentary evidence filed by the 3rd respondent, who was the petitioner before the Tribunal below; by correctly appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal below has recorded a finding that the fourth child of the petitioner was born on 26.02.1996, but not on 22.05.1995 as pleaded by the petitioner. Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence, I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal below and this Court is of the view that the finding with regard to the date of birth of the fourth child of the petitioner was totally proved by oral and documentary evidence let in on behalf of the 3rd respondent; as such there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal below so as to interfere with the same in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 9, 2011 MRR