RAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by orders Annexures P-6, P-10, P-12 and P-19, passed by Collector, Kurukshera, Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and Financial Commissioner, Haryana respectively, whereby plea of the petitioner that his son namely, Sudarshan Kumar had attained majority on the appointed day, has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that petitioner produced sufficient evidence before the authorities to show that date of birth of his son was 13.5.1950. Thus, he was major on the appointed day. In view of same, he was entitled to a separate unit under the provisions of the Act. He has relied upon the judgments rendered in Mohammad Hassan vs. Safdar Mirza and others, 1933 AIR(Lah) 601Nanhak Lal vs. Baijnath Agarwala,1935 AIR(Pat) 474 Bishwanath Gosain vs. Dulhin Lalmuni and others, 1968 AIR(Pat) 481 Sham Lal and another vs. Muni Lal and others, 1972 AIR(P&H) 199, Rajindra Kumar Vs. Shri Chandra Narain Singh and others, 1970 2 SCC 277, Harpal Singh and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1981 1 SCC 560, Umesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan, 1982 2 SCC 202, Santenu Mitra vs. State of W.B., 1999 AIR(SC) 1587, CIDCO vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar, 2009 7 SCC 283, Salig Ram and another vs. Shiv Shankar and others, 1971 AIR(P&H) 437, Smt. Gunwant Kaur and others vs. Municipal Committee Bhatinda and others, 1969 3 SCC 769 and ABL International Ltd. and another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others, 2004 3 SCC 553.

(3.) Plea was opposed by the State counsel. He produced a certificate from Punjab University, Chandigarh showing that son of petitioner had completed his Higher Secondary Examination Part-I in the year 1967. According to him, the matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner becomes doubtful as same pertains to year 1968. This would imply that son of petitioner had cleared a higher exam prior to matriculation. Learned State counsel also produced original record. He referred to same and submitted that petitioner in fact, attached no proof of age of Sudarshan Kumar alongwith the declaration form. Certificates were produced only during the proceedings.