The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the disqualification under section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and the maintainability of the proceedings under section 16(2) of the Act.

Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the original petitioner, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 31st July, 2012, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5606 of 2012. By the impugned Judgment and Order, learned Single Judge has confirmed the Judgment and Order dated 21st June, 2012 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Appeal bearing No. Appeal/Desk/VP/28/2012, thereby confirming the Judgment and Order dated 16th January, 2012 passed by the District Collector, Raigad in Dispute Application No. 41 of 2010. By these orders, the election of the appellant as a Member and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Usurli-Khurd is held as invalid on the count that he has incurred disqualification under section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (Act No. III of 1959), (for short "the Act), since he is having more than two children.

2. The facts, which are relevant and material, for deciding this Appeal may be stated as follows :- In the General Election to the Gram Panchayat, Usurli-Khurd, held in October, 2010, appellant was elected as one of the Members of the Gram Panchayat from Ward No. 3. Subsequent thereto, appellant was further elected as Sarpanch in the first meeting of the Members of the Gram Panchayat held on 1st November, 2010. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, on 11th November, 2010, moved Dispute Application under section 14(1)(j-1), read with section 16(2), of the Act before the Collector, Raigad, alleging, inter alia, that the appellant is having three children, namely, Pranjal Vishwas Bhagat, born on 17th July, 2002; Vishwati Vishwas Bhagat, born on 22nd August, 2003; and Shreya Vishwas Bhagat, born on 20th May, 2010, thereby the appellant has incurred disqualification, as provided under section 14(1)(j-1) of the Act. It was further alleged that the appellant did not disclose this fact at the time of filing his nomination paper and even after he was elected as 'Member' and, subsequently, as 'Sarpanch'. It was, therefore, prayed that the appellant was liable to be removed, as disqualified under the said provision. In support of this Dispute Application, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 produced (i) Birth Certificates of three children of the appellant; (ii) Birth Certificate dated 14th October, 2010 of the third child Shreya, issued by Dr. Panandikar Hospital; (iii) letter dated 22nd October, 2010 of Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ajiwali; (iv) the letter dated 21st October, 2010 issued by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ajiwali, containing details of the registration of pregnant women and medical services provided to them, which included the name of appellant's wife in respect of her third pregnancy.

3. Appellant resisted the Dispute Application by filing a detailed reply dated 28th February, 2011, contending, inter alia, that he had only two daughters, namely, Pranjal and Vishwati. It was his case that the third child Shreya was not his daughter and he is not concerned with her Birth Certificate. To substantiate his contention, appellant has relied upon the Birth Certificate of Shreya, as produced by respondent Nos. 1 to 4, in which the name of Shreya's father was shown as 'Vishwas Gajanan Patil' and mother's name as "Sandhya Vishwas Patil', residents of Usarli, Taluka Panvel. As against this, the name of the appellant is 'Vishwas Laxman Bhagat' and his wife is 'Deepmala Vishwas Bhagat', both of them being the residents of Usurli-Khurd, Taluka Panvel. Thus, according to the appellant, in view of the difference in surname, father's name and mother's name, as also the name of the village, where they are shown to be residents, he was not concerned with the third child Shreya and hence, there was no question of his incurring any disqualification as such.

4. In view of these rival contentions raised by the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the Collector, District Raigad, thought it fit to