JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. — This writ petition has been filed against the judgment dated 3.3.2005 in Election Appeal No. 13 of 2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Puri confirming the order of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Puri in Election Misc. Case No.19 of 2002 declaring the election of the present petitioner as Sarpanch of Badasa Grama Panchayat as invalid. 2. Petitioner, opp.party No.1 and three other candidates contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Badasa Grama Panchayat held on 21.1.2002. In the said election the petitioner secured highest number of votes and was declared elected. The present opp.party No.1 filed Election Misc. Case No.19 of 2002 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Puri challenging the election of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner being the father of four children was disqualified from contesting the election in view of the embargo provided under Section 25(1)(v) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In that petition it was specifically alleged that the fourth child Sanjay was born on 15.1.1997 which is after the cut off date. Petitioner in his counter refuted the allega¬tion claiming inter alia that he has only three children, namely Santosh, Susanta and Jai and that these children were born before the cut off date. He specifically pleaded that Sanjay is not his child, but the child of his brother. 3. Present opp.party No.1 as petitioner of the election misc. case examined four witnesses including himself and the present petitioner as opp.party No.1 in that misc. case examined six witnesses including himself. Parties also produced registers and certificates in support of their respective claims. Learned Civil Judge after perusing those oral and documentary evidence held that Sanjay is the 4th child of the present petitioner and that the said child was born after the cut off date and so the petitioner was disqualified under the provision of Section 25(1)(v) of the Act. He accordingly declared the election of petitioner invalid. The petitioner filed Election Appeal No.13 of 2003 before the learned District Judge, Puri against he said order. Learned District Judge after considering the contentions of the parties confirmed the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Puri and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for quashing of the orders passed in Election Misc. Learned District Judge after considering the contentions of the parties confirmed the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Puri and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for quashing of the orders passed in Election Misc. Case No.19 of 2002 and Election Appeal No. 13 of 2003. 4. Mr. P. K. Rath, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Courts below committed legal error in relying heavily on the entries made in the Family Survey Register of Anganbari, Ext.1, although the said register was not a public document. He submitted that as the Family Survey Register of Anganbari Centre is never maintained by a public servant the same is therefore, not admissible in evidence as per Section 35 of the Evidence Act. In support of his contention he relied on the decisions in A.I.R. 2004 Orissa 14, Bami Bewa v. Krushna Chandra Swain @ Gochhayat and others; AIR 1986 SC 3 , Ram Singh and others v. Col. Ram Singh; AIR 1970 SC 326 , Ram Prasad Sharma v. The State of Bihar. Mr. Rath further submitted that the entries in the School Register, the Birth Certificates and the oral evidence of O.P.Ws. clearly proved that Sanjay born in 1997 is the son of Sarbeswar Mallick, who is the brother of the petitioner, but Courts below ignored those evidence and arbitrarily held that Sanjay is the fourth child of the petitioner. According to him, the finding of the Courts below is contrary to the evidence on record and estab¬lished principles of law. 5. Mr. B. Rout, learned counsel for opp.party No.1 on the other hand argued that entries in the Family Survey Register of Anganbari Centre are made by Anganbari worker in performance of her duties specifically enjoined by law and as such those entries are admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. In support of such contention Mr. Rout relies on the cases of Harpal Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361 and Aina Debi v. Bachan Singh and another, AIR 1980 Allahabad 174. Mr. In support of such contention Mr. Rout relies on the cases of Harpal Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361 and Aina Debi v. Bachan Singh and another, AIR 1980 Allahabad 174. Mr. Rout also contended that the oral and documentary evidence led by the present opp.party No.1 were clear and reliable whereas the evidence led by present petitioner were self-contradictory, confusing and unreliable and hence the Courts below rightly relied on the evidence of the opp.party No.1 and held that Sanjay born in 1997 is the fourth child of the petitioner. It is also contended by Mr. Rout that when the Courts below have concurrent¬ly held that Sanjay is the fourth child of the petitioner, there is no scope for this Court to re-analyse the factual aspect and give a different finding while deciding a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. It has already been made clear by the apex Court in the cases of Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar (2002) 8 SCC-400; Shahnawaz Mohammad Akhtar and another v. 1st A.D.J., Varanasi and others, (2002) 9. SCC-375; Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educa¬tional Research v. State of Maharashtra and others (2001) 10 SCC-166 that the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not same as that of an appellate Court and such power does not include re-appreciation of evidence and on that basis dislodging of concurrent findings of facts recorded by the lower Courts if the findings of fact have been reasonably arrived at, are properly thought out and logically analysed, they should not be interfered with. So the High Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not permitted to interfere with the order of subordinate Courts unless the order impugned contravenes certain provisions of law or is without jurisdiction or has been passed taking into account the extraneous materials or by ignoring relevant materials or has given any finding which could not have been arrived at by any reasonable man. 7. In view of this settled position of law now it is not open for this Court to reanalyze the evidence on record and to record its own finding of facts. 7. In view of this settled position of law now it is not open for this Court to reanalyze the evidence on record and to record its own finding of facts. The only thing which is required to be done is to examine the evidence and impugned orders to find out if the orders are grossly illegal, unreasonable, perverse or were in excess of jurisdiction vested in those Courts. 8. There is no dispute that the Courts below had jurisdic¬tion to hear the Election Misc. Case and appeal arising therefrom. The only allegation of the present petitioner is that the findings recorded by the Courts below are contrary to the materials on record and based on some inadmissible evidence like Ext.1. 9. Ext. 1 is a family survey register of the area. P.W.1, the C.D.P.O., Kanas Block stated that Sumitra Behera, an Angan¬bari worker as per the direction of the State Government, main¬tains the register. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these entries are inadmissible in evidence as the entries have neither been made by public servant nor does it carry any endorsement or signature of the person making the entries. Though several decisions were cited by the parties on the score of admissibility of Ext.1, most of those decisions doe not speak directly on the issue. So, the ratio of all those decisions need no discussion. The relevant decisions are the cases of Kirtan Sahoo v. Thakur Sahoo, 1972 CLT-82, State of Bihar v. Sri Rad¬hakrishna, AIR 1983 SC 684 relied by the Courts below. In these decisions, it has been held that in order to render a document admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act three conditions must be satisfied, namely, (i) the entries relied upon must be one in any publication or other official book, register or re¬cord; (ii) it must be an entry stating the fact in issue or any relevant fact, and (iii) it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties or by any other person in performance of his duties specifically enjoined by law in which the relevant entry is kept. Admittedly, Sumitra Behera, who main¬tained the register Ext.1, is an Anganbari Worker and is not a public servant. Nonetheless, by order of the State Government she has been specifically enjoined to make entries in Family Survey Register by conducting door-to-door survey. Admittedly, Sumitra Behera, who main¬tained the register Ext.1, is an Anganbari Worker and is not a public servant. Nonetheless, by order of the State Government she has been specifically enjoined to make entries in Family Survey Register by conducting door-to-door survey. The entries of the register Ext.1, clearly suggest that the entries are made in regular course of business in the prescribed proforma. The en¬tries Nos. 1020 to 1025 regarding number of children of the petitioner is a relevant fact connected with the material issue and such entry has been made by a person who has been specially empowered by law to make the entries in the register. So the three required conditions are satisfied to make the entries of register Ext.1 admissible u/s. 35 of the Evidence Act. 10. There was objection from the side of the petitioner that the person making the entries in the register Ext.1 has not made any endorsement and has not signed the entries and so the register might be a manufactured one. It is not disputed that Anganbari worker Sumitra Behera made the entries in Ext.1. The entries of the register themselves suggest that they were made in regular course of business and could not have been manufactured over night. So even if no endorsement or signature of any person is there, yet the entries would be admissible as they are main¬tained as a regular course of business by a person under authori¬ty of law. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that Sumitra Behera is in any way inimical or hostile to the petition¬er or she is in any way interested with the opp.party No.1. So, the entries made by her in Ext.1 cannot be considered to be fabricated. Learned Courts below, therefore, did not commit any error in accepting the entries of Ext.1 as admissible u/s. 35 of the Evidence Act. 11. The entries of Ext.1 show that the petitioner has four children, namely, Santosh, Sushanta, Gayatri @ Jai and Bijay @ Sanjay. Witnesses p.ws. 1 to 4 have clearly stated that Sanjay @ Bijay is the fourth child of the petitioner and that the said child was born in 1997. The petitioner as O.P.W. 1 claimed that Sanjay @ Bijay is the son of his brother Sarbeswar. Witnesses p.ws. 1 to 4 have clearly stated that Sanjay @ Bijay is the fourth child of the petitioner and that the said child was born in 1997. The petitioner as O.P.W. 1 claimed that Sanjay @ Bijay is the son of his brother Sarbeswar. He made it clear in his evidence that this Sanjay @ Bijay is never known as Sangram and that Sangram Mallick has also got no other name in the locality. Sarbeswar Mallick- O.P.W. 6 on the other hand claimed that his son Sangram is known as Bijay @ Sanjay and that the boy is shown as his son in the school record. The Headmaster O.P.W 5 also deposed that Sangram is the son of Sarbeswar Mal¬lick and that the date of birth of the said boy is 10.1.1997. The entry in the School Register shows that the entry regarding admission of Sangram in Class-I was made on 2.7.2002 when the election dispute had started. The other witnesses examined by the petitioner also gave prevaricated statement and their evi¬dence in no way establish that Bijay @ Sanjay is the son of Sarbeswar Mallick. Thus in the face of positive evidence of P.Ws. and the entries in the register Ext.1, there was good reason for the Courts below to hold that Sanjay @ Bijay was born in the year 1997 as the 4th child of the present petitioner. Such finding cannot be termed as perverse or contrary to the materials on record. 12. Section 25(1)(v) of the Act says that a person having more than two children stands disqualified from contesting the election for the post of Sarpanch. The only exception to this disqualifying clause is birth of the last child before the cut off date. In the present case Sanjay @ Bijay was born in 1997, which is after the cut off date. So, the petitioner was clearly disqualified from contesting the election. The Courts below were, therefore, perfectly justified in declaring the election as in¬valid. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is found to be without any merit and is dismissed. P. K. TRIPATHY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.