Original v. D. Salunke

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 13370 OF 2024 Baliram Changoji Mahajan, Age 48 years, Occu. Sarpanch, Village Panhayat, Kurha,R/o. Kurha, Tq. Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon..Petitioner(Original Respondent) Versus1.State of MaharashtraThrough the District Collector, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon2.The Gram Sevak, Gram Panchayat Kurha, Tq. Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon3.Mandabai Dinkar Patil, Age 47 years, Occu. Household/Agri.R/o. Kurha, Tq. Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon..Respondents(R.No.3/Original complainant)Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Petitioner; Smt. Kalpalata B. Patil Bharaswadkar, AGP for Respondent No.1;Mr. V.G. Dhundale and S.C.Magre, Advocates for Respondent No.2;Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. S. R. Phatale, Advocate for Respondent No.3 CORAM: ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.DATE: 11-08-2025PER COURT:-

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch in the elections held in2022. Respondent No.3 has initiated proceeding under Section 14(1)(J-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 (for short,“the Act of 1959”) seeking disqualification of the petitioner on the 2 9-WP-13370-24.odtground that he has begotten a third child after the cut-off dateprescribed under the Act i.e. 31.12.2001.

In this proceeding, respondent No.3 had filed an applicationfor conducting DNA test of the petitioner and the alleged thirdchild. Vide order dated 25.11.2024, the Collector has directed thepetitioner to file or record medical evidence and other validdocuments with respect to paternity of the child. It is pertinent tonote that according to the petitioner, he is blessed with twodaughters. His contention is that Deepak @ Raj, the alleged thirdchild is not his biological son. The contention of the petitioner isthat Dipak is son of his deceased brother Samadhan. The case ofthe petitioner is that Samadhan’s wife had delivered twin babies. It is stated that one child was delivered at the residential houseand other child was delivered after she taken at Hospital at Malkapur. As per the contention, Deepak was delivered in theresidential house and another son was delivered in a Hospital at Malkapur. It must be stated that there is a registered Deed of Adoption, by which the petitioner and his wife have taken Deepakin adoption from sister-in-law of the petitioner i.e. the wife ofdeceased Samadhan.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that all thesedocuments pertaining to registered Deed of Adoption andreference letter of Primary Health Center, Kurha, discharge card ofhospital at Malkapur, opinion of the Medical Board and other 3 9-WP-13370-24.odtdocuments are already produced on record. He states thattherefore there is no propriety to direct the petitioner to producedocuments on record.

Per contra, contention of the respondent No.3 is that thelearned Collector should have allowed the application for DNA testfiled by respondent No.3. He contends that the Collector has erredin directing the petitioner to produce documents on record ratherthan directing the petitioner and Deepk to undergo DNA test. Perusal of the order impugned will demonstrate that the Collectorhas not taken any decision as to whether the petitioner and Deepak should be referred for DNA examination.

In view of the above, it is necessary to quash and set asidethe order dated 25.11.2024 passed by respondent No.1/Collector. The Collector is directed to decide the application afresh afterhearing the parties.

Needless to mention that the contention of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner with respect to jurisdiction of the Collector to set aside the registered deed of adoption andjurisdiction to direct the parties to undergo a DNA test is keptopen.