RAVIKIRAN ALIAS ABASAHEB DESHMUKH Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners challenge order rendered by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in proceedings of appeal filed by respondent No. 3 against his disqualification to continue as Sarpanch of village panchayat, Asardoh (District Beed.). The Additional Divisional Commissioner allowed his appeal and held that he was not disqualified. The petitioners are aggrieved due to such decision because since beginning, an objection was raised by the petitioner No. 2 about eligibility of the respondent No. 3 - Bhagwan as a candidate on the ground that his nomination paper was invalid due to the fact that he was having third child after the cutoff date i.e. 13-09-2001.

(2.) Indisputably, elections of the Village Panchayat, Asardoh were due in the month of September, 2007 and the election programme was declared by the competent authority. On 24thth September, 2007, the petitioner No. 2 had filed objection application before the Returning Officer. He alleged that the respondent No. 3 was ineligible to file his nomination form because there were three children born to him and the third child was born after the cutoff date i.e. 13thth September, 2001. He asserted that as per the Government Resolution and the policy, the respondent No. 3 could not be permitted to contest the village panchayat election due to the reason that third child i.e. daughter, by name Vaishnavi, was born to him on 25thth September, 2002 out of wedlock with his wife by name Rajashri. The objection was overruled by the Returning Officer. The elections were held. The respondent No. 3 Bhagwan was elected from ward No. 1. He was lateron elected as Sarpanch of Asardoh Village Panchayat. The petitioners filed Dispute No. 6 of 2007, challenging the eligibility of the respondent No. 3 to continue in the office of Sarpanch on the ground that he was disqualified under Section 14(1)(j)(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for short, "the BVP Act"). The learned Additional Collector heard concerned parties, including the respondent No. 3 and came to the conclusion that the latter was disqualified as Member of the Village Panchayat. It was held that the third child was born on 25thth September, 2002 and, therefore, the nomination of the respondent No. 3 could not have been accepted by the Returning Officer, nor he was entitled to continue in the office. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal bearing No. CR/165/08. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeal holding that the third child was born prior to the cutoff date and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 - Bhagwan did not incur disqualification under the law. Hence, the petition.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.