Mangesh S. Patil, J.

1. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. Heard the learned Advocates for both the sides.

2. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari or an order in the nature thereof in respect of the judgment and order dated 02.01.2015 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik (Exhibit 'A') and judgment and order dated 20.03.2014 passed by the Additional Collector, Dhule in Village Panchayat Dispute No. 2 of 2014 (Exhibit 'B'). The petitioner is also seeking writ of Mandamus or a direction or order in the nature thereof, seeking declaration that of Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is unconstitutional to the extent it restricts the period of limitation which begins to run from the date of passing of the order and not from the date of its knowledge.

3. The relevant facts as are necessary to decide the Writ Petition may be summarised as under:

The petitioner was married on 16.03.1996. She gave birth to her first child on 19.11.1998 and the second child on 20.11.2000. She gave birth to her third child which is a girl by name Shweta on 17.08.2001. The date of birth was also recorded under the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969 and the rules framed thereunder. A bona fide certificate was also issued by the Headmaster of H.R. Patel Kanya Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Shirpur, District Dhule, certifying that Shweta was born on 17.08.2001 and even her school leaving certificate read her date of birth as the same.

The petitioner filed her nomination for ward no.2 in open women category in the Gram Panchayat Elections of village Nanthe. All her three children were born before the cut-off date namely 12.09.2001, for inviting disqualification as laid down under Section 14 (j-1) of the Act. Nobody had taken any objection to her nomination including the respondent no.4, who also contested the election. However, after she was elected, he raised a dispute by filing Village Panchayat Dispute Application No. 2 of 2014 before the respondent no.3-Additional Collector, Dhule to the effect that she was disqualified since her third child Shweta was born on 17.06.2003 i.e. after the cut-off date i.e. 12.09.2001. He filed documents demonstrating that Shweta was born after the cut-off date.

The respondent no.3, then, proceeded with the inquiry. On 22.01.2014 the learned Advocate for the petitioner was absent for the hearing and the matter was adjourned to 29.01.2014. On that day her learned Advocate was present but the matter was adjourned to 14.02.2014 and then to 26.02.2014. On 26.02.2014 when the matter was called out the petitioner's Advocate submitted an application for issuing witness summons to the Headmaster of R.C. Patel High School for verifying the original school register. On 12.03.2014, the petitioner was personally present before the respondent no.3 and so was the Headmaster of R.C. Patil High School, albeit her learned Advocate was absent. However, the respondent no.3 did not verify the original register brought by the Headmaster and the matter was reserved for decision. On the same day the learned Advocate for the respondent no.4 also submitted written notes of arguments. On 20.03.2014, the respondent no.3 passed the judgment holding that the petitioner had earned disqualification. The copy of the order was received by the Tahsildar only on 25.03.2014 and it was received in the office of Village Panchayat, Nanthe on 19.06.2014. For that matter even respondent no. 4 could receive the copy of the judgment on 24.06.2014. She got the knowledge of the decision on 04.07.2014, when intimation letter (Exhibit-Q) signed by the Village Development Officer was received by her.

According to the petitioner, since she was only informed about the decision and was not having a copy of the judgment, she applied for it and receive