Bombay High Court
Sau. Renukabai Parasram Rathod vs Additional Commissioner ... on 7 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp2602.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2602 OF 2016
Sau. Renukabai Parasram Rathod,
Age 47 years, Occu. : Housewife,
R/o. Krushna, Tq. and Distt. Washim.
.... PETITIONER.
ig // VERSUS //
1. Additional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. Additional Collector, Washim.
3. Secretary, Gram Panchayat,
R/o. Krushna, Tq. & Dist. Washim.
4. Babusingh Ganu Rathod,
Age 50 yrs, Occu : Agriculturist,
5. Bharat Narsingh Chavhan,
Age : 40 yrs., Occu. Agriculturist,
Respondent no. 4 & 5, R/o. Krushna,
Tq. and Dist. Washim.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.V.Band, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms H.N. Jaipurkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Shri R.N.Ghuge, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
None for Respondent Nos. 3 and 5.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JULY 07, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Judgment 2 wp2602.16.odt
1. Heard learned advocates for the petitioner and respondent No.4
and learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None appeared for the
respondent Nos. 3 and 5, though served.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner got elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat
in 2012. On 11th November, 2014, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed an
application before the Additional Collector contending that the petitioner is
having 7 children out of which 6 are born before the cut-off date i.e. 13 th
September, 2007 and the 7th child is born after the cut-off date and
therefore, the petitioner incurred disqualification as per Section 14(1)(j-1) of
the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The petitioner came out with
the case that the date of birth of Komal (seventh child) is not 15 th January,
2002 as pleaded by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, but her date of birth is 13 th
August, 2000. The respective parties placed documents on the record of the
Additional Collector to substantiate their contentions. The learned Additional
Collector considered the material on record and by order dated 18 th June,
2015 concluded that the date of birth of Komal is 13 th August, 2000 and
rejected the application filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 challenged the order passed by
the Additional Collector in appeal which is allowed by the learned Additional
Judgment 3 wp2602.16.odt
Commissioner by the impugned order. The learned Additional Commissioner
has recorded that the date of birth of Komal is 15 th January, 2002 as reflected
in the certificate issued by the Child Development Project Officer and as
reflected in the records of the school at village Warla. The learned Additional
Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector and
declared that the petitioner is disqualified to continue as member of the
Gram Panchayat. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above order has
filed this petition.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have not produced any documentary evidence on
record to establish that the date of birth of Komal is 15 th January, 2002. It is
submitted that the learned Additional Commissioner has committed an error
in relying on the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Krushna and the
school record which shows that the date of birth of Komal is 15 th January,
2002, when the Gram Panchayat record does not contain any entry to show
that the female child was born to the petitioner (Sau. Renuka Parasram
Rathod) on 15th January, 2002. It is submitted that the record of Gram
Panchayat shows that the girl child was delivered by Vimala on 19 th
December, 2001 about which entry is taken on 15th January, 2002.
5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the
entries in the register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriage
Judgment 4 wp2602.16.odt
Registration Act have evidentiary value and the authorities while considering
the issue of disqualification of the elected member, cannot rely on the entires
taken in some records at the behest of Anganwadi Sevikas. To support the
submission the learned advocate has relied on the judgment given in the case
of Meerabai Vs. State of Mah., reported in 2013(4) Mh.L.J. 446. It is further
submitted that the entry in the school admission register and the transfer
certificate, about the date of birth is not reliable as false age of child is
normally given at the time of admission so that he may have an advantage
later in his life. To support this submission, the learned advocate has relied
on the judgment given in the case of Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar,
reported in (2003) 8 SCC 673. Relying on the above judgments, it is
submitted that the learned Additional Commissioner has committed an error
in relying on the entries in the records, which are not reliable.
6. After examining the documents placed on the record of the
petition and after going through the order passed by the learned Additional
Commissioner, I find that there are documents placed by the petitioner as
well as the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to substantiate their contentions. The
disputed questions of fact are involved. However, one clinching fact which
goes against the petitioner is that the date of birth of Komal was earlier
admittedly recorded as 15th January, 2002 in the school record and the
parents of Komal i.e. the petitioner and her husband got the date of birth
changed. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of Maharashtra
Judgment 5 wp2602.16.odt
Government Gazette of January, 9-15, 2014/Poush 19-25, Shake 1935, which
shows that after following the prescribed procedure the petitioner and her
husband have got the date of birth of Komal changed from 15 th January, 2002
to 13th August, 2000. This change in date of birth of Komal is got effected by
the petitioner and her husband after the petitioner got elected. In these
circumstances, the burden to show that the date of birth of Komal is 13 th
August, 2000 and not 15th January, 2002 was more on the petitioner. The
petitioner has failed to prove by filing proper documents or leading evidence
that the date of birth of Komal is 13th August, 2000.
In the facts of the case, the judgments relied upon on behalf of
the petitioner do not assist her.
In the above circumstances, the order passed by the learned
Additional Commissioner does not require any interference.
The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to
bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
Judgment 6 wp2602.16.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : R.B. Raut, PS Uploaded on : 19.07.2016.
