SAU. DEEPALI SANTOSH KHODKE Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the caveator/ respondent no. 3.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

(3.) The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Additional Collector, Buldana dated 25-5-2016 as well the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati dated 23-8-2016 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner in challenge to the order passed by the Additional Collector, Buldana. The controversy revolves around disqualification sought for of the petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and specifically under Section 14(j-1). The respondent no. 3 lodged his complaint by way of an application submitting therein that the petitioner was elected as a Member of the Gram Panchayat of Village Palsoda in August, 2015. Along with the affidavit filed with the nomination form, the petitioner has shown the number of issues born after 13-9-2001 as two. It was the submission of the respondent no. 3 before the Additional Collector that the third child was born to the petitioner, as such, the petitioner was declared as disqualified. The respondent no. 3 placed reliance on a certificate issued by the Anganwadi Sevika in support of his submissions. The petitioner contested the proceedings by filing reply. It was the stand of the petitioner before the authority that the said document i.e. certificate 3 jg.wp226.17.odt issued by the Anganwadi Sevika cannot be treated as a material document either proof or evidence in support of the contentions of the respondent no. 3. It was also submitted by the petitioner in the reply that though the petitioner requested for calling the fact finding report, the request of the petitioner was turned down and the matter was closed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. The Additional Collector, only on referring to the contentions raised by the respondent no. 3 and relying on the document i.e. the certificate issued by the Anganwadi Sevika, held that the petitioner begotten the third child after the cut off date i.e. 12-9-2001 and the application of the respondent no. 3 seeking disqualification was allowed. Being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, an appeal was preferred. The Additional Commissioner also placing reliance on the certificate issued by the Anganwadi Sevika, Center No. 1, dismissed the appeal.