[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nitesh Shivaji Ingle vs The Divisional Commissioner Chh. ... on 30 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:3927
(1) wp-11672-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.11672 OF 2025
Nitesh s/o Shivaji Ingle,
Age:- 41 years, Occ. Agri./Social Work,
R/o. Bembli, Tq. & Dist. Dharashiv. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Divisional Commissioner,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
2. The Collector,
Dharashiv, Tq. & Dist. Dharashiv.
3. Salman s/o Sattar Shaikh,
Age:- 29 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o. Bembli, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ..Respondents
(Resp. No.3 is Orig. Complainant)
...
Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh h/f Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Mr. M. K. Goyanka, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. S. G. Kawade, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 21st JANUARY, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 30th JANUARY, 2026.
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
2. The petitioner impugns order dated 11.09.2025 passed by
Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Case
No.2025/Gram Panchayat/Appeal-2/CR-60, thereby upholding
order dated 15.07.2025 passed by District Collector in File
(2) wp-11672-2025.odt
No.2021/GA/GPE/Ka-1/Kavi-379, whereby petitioner has been
disqualified being member of Village Panchayat under Section
14(J-1) r/w. 16(2) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for
short 'MVP Act').
3. On 15.01.2021, petitioner is elected as member of Village
Panchayat, Bembli, Tq. and Dist. Dharashiv. Later on, he was
elected as Upsarpanch. The respondent no.3 initiated proceeding
for disqualification of petitioner in terms of Section 14(1)(J-2) r/w.
16(2) of MVP Act before District Collector, Dharashiv. It is alleged
that petitioner has more than two children born after cut off date.
It is pleaded that petitioner has daughter namely Shreya Nitesh
Ingle and two sons namely Harsh Nitesh Ingle and Raj Nitesh
Ingle. All of them are students. The District Collector caused
enquiry into matter and finally concluded that petitioner incurred
disqualification. The petitioner assailed aforesaid order before
Divisional Commissioner at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, who
pleased to uphold order of disqualification passed by District
Collector.
4. Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for
petitioner submits that order of disqualification passed by
respondents/authorities is without appreciation of evidence on
record in its proper perspective. The findings recorded by them is
inconsistent with documentary evidence on record and in ignorance
(3) wp-11672-2025.odt
with well settled position of law. In support of his contentions he
relies upon observations of this Court in cases of Vasudha
Gorakhnath Mandvilkar Vs. City and Industrial
Development Corporation1 and Meerabai Suresh Bhill Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others2.
5. Per contra, Mr. Kawade, learned Advocate appearing for
respondent no.3 and Mr. Goyanka, learned AGP appearing for
respondent nos.1 and 2 supports impugned order of
disqualification.
6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties and perusal of record
would show that respondent no.3 came with specific case that
petitioner has three children born after 12.02.2001 and as such, he
incurred disqualification in terms of Sections 14(1) (J-1) of MVP
Act. The petitioner had declared that he had only two children as
on date of nomination namely Shreya Nitesh Ingle born on
07.08.2006 and Harsh Nitesh Ingle born on 11.05.2008. He
specifically denies paternity of third child namely Raj Nitesh Ingle
born on 05.11.2009. The District Collector while upholding
disqualification of petitioner relied upon school record of children of
petitioner, who are taking their education at Poddar International
School, Dharashiv. The District Collector observed that school
1 2008 (5) Bom CR 417.
2 2013 (3) ALL MR 569.
(4) wp-11672-2025.odt
record of all three children shows father's name as Nitesh Shivaji
Ingle and mother's name as Vidya Nitesh Ingle. Copies of Aadhar
Cards are appended to school admission form. The Aadhar Cards
of their parents are also formed part of school admission record.
One more document has been relied upon by District Collector,
namely, communication issued by Headmaster of Poddar
International School dated 10.07.2025, which suggests that in
school records of Shreya, a change in mother's name was made at
request of parents. Initially, it was Sanjana, however, it has been
changed to Vidya.
7. The Divisional Commissioner while confirming order of
disqualification passed by District Collector again relied upon
school admission record in respect of three children of petitioner
alongwith Aadhar Cards appended thereto. The petitioner could
not explain as to how his Aadhar Card is appended to admission
form of all three children. The reply filed by petitioner before
District Collector shows that he accepted that Shreya Nitesh Ingle
born on 07.08.2006 and Harsh Nitesh Ingle born on 11.05.2008 are
his children. However, he denies paternity of third child namely
Raj Nitesh Ingle. The record of Greenland English Medium
Primary School depicts that father's name is mentioned as Ingle
Nitesh Subhash and mother's name is mentioned as Sanjana, but
general school admission register of Greenland School depicts that
(5) wp-11672-2025.odt
at the time of admission of Raj, his mother's name was recorded as
Vidya. Later on, it has been erased and replaced as Sanjana. The
Headmaster of school explained that aforesaid correction was
carried on request of parents. Apparently, petitioner is trying to
disown his child and attempted to manipulate school record to hide
identity of child.
8. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner
relied upon observations of this Court in case of Vasudha
Gorakhnath Mandvilkar (supra), wherein it has been observed
that general register regarding school admission would be private
document and would not carry presumption in law. Unless such
record is accompanied by documentary evidence to substantiate
date of birth of student, it cannot be relied as proof of date of birth.
Essentially, in that case there was dispute regarding change of
date of birth of petitioner entered in school record. In that
background, this Court observed that school record, unless
supported by authentic public record regarding date of birth, does
not carry probative value. Apparently, such observations are in a
different context. In present case, dispute is not with regard to date
of birth, but pertains to identity of child. Second judgment in case
of Meerabai Suresh Bhill (supra) relates to acceptance of
certificate issued by Anganwadi Sevika. Such is not case here.
(6) wp-11672-2025.odt
9. In case of Bharat Vitthal Shete Vs. Rohidas Manaji and
others3, this Court relying upon observations of Supreme Court in
case of Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar4 observed that in
absence of evidence to show that date of birth was recorded at the
instance of responsible person, certificate issued by Municipal
Council cannot be accepted as gospel truth.
10. Apparently, all three judgments relied on behalf of petitioner
are distinguishable on facts. In present case it can be observed
that admissions of all three children of petitioner were secured in
Poddar International School. Their admission forms are supported
by Aadhar Card of petitioner being parent. The petitioner could
not controvert aforesaid evidence by bringing evidence in rebuttal.
Both Authorities on appreciation of material on record have
accepted that petitioner has three children. In this background,
findings of fact recorded by both Authorities need not be interfered
in exercise of Writ jurisdiction.
11. In result, Writ Petition stands dismissed.
12. Rule stands discharged.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/January-2026
3 2012 (5) ALL M.R. 497.
4 (2003) 8 SCC 673.
