The main legal point established is that compliance with the age requirement under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act is essential for contesting elections, and substantial documentary evidence is necessary to support the age requirement.

By consent, heard finally.

2. In Writ Petition No.2195/2009, the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment/order dated 31.01.2009 passed by the District Judge, Nasik, whereby, an Election Petition No.9/2007 filed by respondent no.1(original petitioner) has been allowed and the election of the petitioner (original opponent no.1) from Ward No.19 of Igatpuri Municipal Council (I.M.Council) in the year 2007, is declared as null and void and accordingly set aside. By the same order, respondent no.1(original petitioner) has been declared to be elected in the place of petitioner from Ward No.19 of I.M. Council. Therefore, this petition.

3. In Writ Petition No.2254/2009, two voters being resident of Ward No.19 of I.M.Council challenged the direction No.(3) of the impugned order only and prayed further to hold fresh election of the Ward of I. M. Council.

4. Both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment as the basic facts & issues are common.

5. In the month of December, 2007, an election was declared for member councillor of ten municipal councils for reserved category. The original petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 contested from Ward No.19 which was reserved for female (Scheduled Caste) candidate. The elections were held on 25.11.2007. The results were declared in the evening and the petitioner/opponent no.1 was declared elected.

6. The present Election Petition No.9/2007 was filed by respondent no.1 mainly on the ground that the petitioner was disqualified from contesting the election being less than 21 years of age on the date of filing of nomination form. Though denied by written statement, but unable to support any material document to substantiate her age by the petitioner. The original opponents 4 and 5 filed reply/written statement. Opponent No.3 proceeded exparte. Opponent No.2 filed pursis and supported the objection raised in the petition.

7. Respondent no.1 filed her deposition on affidavit and examined one Vasant Shankar Bawa, Bajrang Rakhmaji Thorat and Mahendra Subhashchandra Nabheda. The petitioner (opponent no.1) did not examine any witness.

8. The learned Judge has framed the following issues:

Issue Findings

1. Does petitioner prove that the opponent no.1 was In the affirmative disqualified for contesting election in Ward No.19 of Igatpuri Nagar Parishad General Election, 2007?

2. Is petitioner entitled to the In affirmative. relief as prayed for ?

3. What order? As per final order 9. After considering the material including evidence and documents filed on record, the learned Judge rightly arrived at conclusion that the original petitioner has proved that the petitioner (opponent no.1) was disqualified for contesting election in Ward No.19 of Igatpuri Nagar Parishad General Election 2007 and accordingly allowed the Election Petition. The relevant portion of the reasoning as correctly recorded is as under:

"9. It needs to be noted here that the school leaving certificate at Exh.42 is submitted by the opponent no.1 herself to caste scrutiny committee at the time of verification of caste certificate. The said document is obtained by the present applicant by applying to the caste scrutiny committee under the Right to Information Act. From the said certificate here is no doubt that the maiden name of opponent no.1 was Anita Prabhakar Pawar. The said evidence is corroborated by witness no.4 for the petitioner Narendra Nabeda who has admitted that the certified copy of marriage card shown to him was printed in his printing press at Exh.48. The said marriage card is also a marriage card submitted by the opponent no.1 to the caste scrutiny committee and those are the certified copies placed on record, issued by the caste scrutiny committee on application under Right to Information Act by the applicant. From these documents it is clear that the date of birth of the opponent is 6.7.87 and last date of submitting nomination form was 2.11.07. Thus, on the last day of submitting nomination form t