IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2289 OF 2010 Between: Gousia Begum .....PETITIONER AND Waheedunnisa and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2289 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 28.05.2010, in I.A.No.619 of 2010 in O.P.No.932 of 2005, on the file of the District Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed to re-open the enquiry of the petition for the purpose of receiving the document, dated 22.04.2010, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, was rejected on the ground that there are no merits in the plea of the petitioner herein to re-open the enquiry for adducing further evidence. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the document now sought to be received is relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue; that it can be used as evidence; and that the trial court without assigning any reasons, simply dismissed the application and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the document now sought to be marked is totally irrelevant; that the issue has to be decided basing on the pleadings and evidence and the entire evidence was completed; that the evidence has to be appreciated with reference to the provisions under Section 21 (B) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”) and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 4. The issue is with regard to declaring the election of the petitioner held on 26.09.2005 as invalid on the ground that the petitioner gave birth to her fourth child on 11.11.1996 i.e, after the commencement of the Act and therefore, the candidate incurred disqualification under Section 21 (B) of the Act. It seems that the petitioner made an application to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, to issue a direction that the disqualification under Section 21 (B) of the Act shall not apply in respect of the petitioner herein, for which the Government stated that as the third and fourth child were born before 30.05.1995, disqualification under the provisions of Section 21 (B) of the Act will not be applicable. Hence, no exemption from disqualification under the Act is required. If the child was born before 30.05.1995, the disqualification under section 21 (B) of the Act would not be applicable. So, the issue to be decided is based on the date of birth of the fourth child with reference to Section 21 (B) of the Act. The necessary evidence on that aspect was let in. So, the document is totally not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue. Hence, the trial court after considering the material available on record, rightly rejected the same. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 09, 2010 MD