The Bombay High Court remanded the matter back in a writ petition filed against two impugned orders by which the petitioner was disqualified after having won the Grampanchayat elections. The Court observed that the authorities did not consider the evidence as regards the demise of the child.

Brief Facts:

The election of Grampanchayat Nimgaon Khalu was declared in January 2021 and the Petitioner was declared elected unopposed as a member of the Grampanchayat. Respondent No.4 filed a complaint before Respondent No.3, under Section 14 (1) (j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, submitting therein that the petitioner has more than two children ― one of the children being born after the cut-off date of 12.09.2001 ― and hence, has incurred disqualification.

Respondent No.3, by order dated 01.12.2021, disqualified the petitioner for having a child born on 12.02.2002 i.e., after the cut-off date and the total number of children of the petitioner being more than two. The appellate authority upheld the order passed by the authority.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The Learned Counsel for Petitioner argued that the child born on 12.02.2002 being a pre-mature child, passed away shortly on 02.04.2002. The number of children has to be considered as on the date of nomination. Thus, a child born after the cut-off date and having passed away before the nomination is not to be counted for the purpose of disqualification.

A candidate having more than two children before the cut-off date is protected by the proviso to Section 14 (1) (j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 provided the number of children does not increase after the cut-off date.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The Learned Counsel for Respondents argued that the 4th child Manish Chhaburao Katore was born on 10.06.2001 and the birth was registered on 20.06.2007. He disputed the said birth certificate of Manish Chhaburao Katore and submitted that Manish Chhaburao Katore is the same person, who is born on 12.02.2002 and that it is not physically possible to have a next child within the period of around eight months of the birth of an earlier child.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that the authorities committed error in law in passing the impugned orders. This is because the authorities proceeded on the basis that, whether the child born after the cut-off date is dead as on the date of nomination is an immaterial fact.

Since the authorities proceeded on the basis that it is immaterial that the factum of the child born after the cut-off date was dead, they did not consider the evidence as regards the demise of the child. The authorities did not consider the law laid down by this court in the case of Subhash Sajesingh Gavit Vs. Returning Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar, and others, Writ Petition No.6993 of 2008 that the number of children as on the date of nomination is the relevant factor in determining the disqualification.

The decision of the Court:

The Bombay High Court remanded the matter back to the collector for a fresh decision in the proceedings seeking permission to register the death of the child born on 12.02.2002.

Case Title: Vaishali Chaburao Katore vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arun R. Pedneker

Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 8629 OF 2022

Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Zaware Suvarna M.

Advocate for the Respondent No.1: Mr. N. T. Bhagat and Mr. Nangare Prashant R.

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Deepak