JUDGMENT : Rajendra Menon, J. Challenging Section 18(1)(m) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and seeking a declaration that the said provision is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution, it imposes unreasonable restriction on the right of a person to have children, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Even though various grounds were canvassed in support of the aforesaid prayer made in the writ petition, the question need not be gone into any further as the issue with regard to the subject-matter of the writ petition has already been decided both by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by a Division Bench of this Court and similar writ petitions dismissed. 3. Challenging Section-18(1)(m) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 a writ petition was filed and in the case of Arun Ravidas v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No.16546 of 2010), decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 7.4.2011 and reported in 2011 (2) P.L.J.R. 795 , the constitutional validity of this Clause has been upheld and while doing so the learned Division Bench had referred to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Javed & Ors. v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3057 . Before the Supreme Court in the case of Javed (supra), Section 175(1)(q) of the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was challenged and Section 175(1)(q) of the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 reads as under: "175(1)(q) has more than two living children:" 4. A perusal of the provisions of Section- 18(1)(m) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and Section 175(1)(q) of the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 goes to show that both are identical in terms and similar in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the validity of Section 175(1)(q) of the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 in the case of Javed (supra) had gone into the question of discrimination, legislative competence and the reasonableness of the disqualification based on such a Clause and has upheld that identically in the State of Bihar. 5. Once the Supreme Court and a Division Bench of this Court have upheld the statutory provision, we see no reason to make any indulgence into the matter. 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.