1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

2. The proceeding is filed to challenge the decision given by the learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik in Gram Panchayat Appeal No. 80/2016. The appeal was filed by present respondent - Smt. Alka Pandharinath Kolhe to challenge the decision given by the learned Collector in Dispute Application No. 6/2016. The Collector had disqualified the respondent member of Village Panchayat as third child was born to her after her election to Village Panchayat.

3. Before the Collector, the complainant placed reliance on the record like declaration made by respondent member when the nomination form was filed for election to Village Panchayat. This declaration dated 17.7.2015 shows that she had declared that she had two issues. However, she had disclosed the name of only one issue as Pallavi Pandharinath Kolhe and she had not filled the place which was meant for giving name of second issue. Thus, on 17.7.2015, admittedly she was having two issues. Before Additional Collector three birth certificates were produced by the petitioner's side. The first birth certificate shows that one female child was born to Alka Pandharinath Kolhe and Pandharinath Waman Kolhe. This record is not disputed by respondent member. The second birth certificate issued by Nagar Panchayat Karyalaya Shirur, District Beed shows that one daughter by name Sonali was born to couple Sou. Swati Pandhari Kolhe and Pandhari Waman Kolhe, resident of Kolhewadi. This certificate is disputed by the respondent member. Even if this certificate is ignored from consideration, that will not make any difference as in declaration dated 17.7.2015 respondent member had declared that on that day she was having two issues. The third birth certificate shows that one male child was born on 7.10.2015 to Alka Pandharinath Kolhe and Pandharinath Waman Kolhe. This entry was made on the basis of information given by the hospital of Dr. Chandrakant More from Jamkhed. This certificate is also disputed by the present respondent member.

4. The Collector had believed the aforesaid record and had made the order against the respondent member. The Commissioner has placed reliance on some observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as 2005 (1) ALL MR 749 [Gangadhar s/o. Gonduram Tadme Vs. Trimbak s/o. Govindrao Akingire & Ors.]. This Court has carefully gone through the facts of this reported case. Some observations are made by this Court in relation to provisions of Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1886 and particularly, with regard to the procedure given in section 22 of the Act. In that case, it was held that it was necessary to sign the information, application by the informer giving information to the authority and the signature was to be put in the presence of the authority itself. There was no such record and so, the Court held that such record was not made under the provisions of the Act and such record cannot have presumptive value. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of new Act like Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 which has taken the place of aforesaid old Act and present provisions are of different nature. He took this Court to provision of section 8 of the new Act showing that when there is birth in hospital, it is the duty of the hospital to give intimation to the registering authority of the birth. The learned counsel submitted that in accordance with this provision, the intimation was given by the hospital and entry was made in the birth register. He submitted that as the certificate produced before the Collector was certified copy of the original register and it was certified copy of public record, it has presumptive value and inference was available to the Collector under section 114 of the Evidence Act. He placed reliance on the observations made in some cases reported as 2010 ALL