ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4864 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4864 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4864 OF 2008 Mr.Samadhan Gangaram Utekar ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.R.P.Sabban for the Petitioner. Mrs.Bhende, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 15th July, 2008 : 15th July, 2008 : 15th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioner was elected as a member of Grampanchayat, Mangaon, Dist. Raigad in the General Election held in the year 2005. The Petitioner was subsequently disqualified by the Collector by his order dated 13th August, 2007 under the Provisions of Section 14-J of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act-1958. 2. The first child, second child and the third child were born to the Petitioner on 18/03/1998, 18/10/2005 07/03/2007 respectively. Obviously, therefore, the third child was born after the cutoff date i.e. after September, 2001. The submission of the Petitioner is that his second child i.e. daughter was given in ( 2 ) adoption to one Kishor Lokhande and therefore, this child cannot be counted for the purpose of provisions of Section 14(J)(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act-1958. The Petitioner’s submission rightly was not accepted by the authorities below in view of the decision of Division Bench reported in Abbas Vs. Abbas Vs. Abbas Vs. Pramod Pramod Pramod Nandalal Yadav, 2007(5) All MR 255 Nandalal Yadav, 2007(5) All MR 255 Nandalal Yadav, 2007(5) All MR 255. If the Petitioner’s contention is accepted then the provisions of Section 14(J)(1) can easily be defeated. I do not find any error in the impugned order. 3. The Petition is devoid of any substance and the same is dismissed, accordingly. ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)