Dayanand Narvekar, former Cabinet Minister of the Goa Legislative Assembly and MLA Aldona has been taking to court under a criminal complaint along with his wife and son by Dr Shekhar Salkar who alleges fraud, forgery and misuse of government office for personal benefits whether it was to gain admission for his son in school or play Under-15 competitive cricket for the Goa Cricket team. GoaChronicle.com investigates both sides of the story…
Based on the criminal complaint filed by Dr Shekhar Salkar; the Mapusa Judicial Magistrate First Class, Cholu Gawas, has summoned former Cabinet Minister Dayanand Narvekar, his wife Sushma and son Ganeshraj.
The judge observed that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for offences punishable under Indian Penal Code (Forgery and Criminal Conspiracy). Therefore, the court has directed the accused Narvekar family to appear before it on September 22 for verification of documents.
Stumped in Cricket
Dayanand Narvekar has been the President of the Goa Cricket Association since 1998. GCA is affiliated to (BCCI). In his petition Dr Salkar alleges that in collusion and connivance with Narvekar, GCA submitted a forged certificate of birth, showing his date of birth as 1.9.1993, for the purpose of enabling his son to play Polly Umrigar Trophy Under-15 South Zone Cricket Tournament for the cricketing season of 2005-06 and 2006-07. It is pertinent to note that in terms of the revised Rules, no player can play for more than two years in Under-15 category. It is also pertinent to note that whereas the birth certificate submitted to BCCI shows the name as ‘Ganeshraj (Anish) Dayanand Narvekar’, in the Form dated 28.10.2005, signed and submitted by the son to BCCI, the name Anish is consciously and conspicuously not mentioned, as the name Anish was intended to be used in future for playing for the third time in Under-15 category. The certificate of birth submitted to the BCCI shows that the date of birth, appearing on the birth certificate with the Registrar of Mapusa Municipal area under registration No. 208 and date of registration as 27.1.1995, was changed from 28.2.1993 to 1.9.1993. (Date of Birth One)
By its letter dated 9.5.2007, the attention of Goa Cricket Association, was drawn by the BCCI to the revised rules of the BCCI which permitted a player to play for not more than 2 years in Under 15 and Under 17 and not more than 4 years in Under 19 age group tournaments. Along with the said letter, a list of the players who could not play for the 2007-08 season tournaments in the respective age groups was also annexed. The name of Ganeshraj Dayanand Narvekar was referred to at Sr. No.6 of the said list pertaining to Under 15 age group.
It appears that to wriggle out of the said situation, Narvekar and GCA misrepresented to BCCI and sent the recommendation of the son by showing the name only as Anish Dayanand Narvekar instead of Ganeshraj Dayanand Narvekar, and his birth date as 28.2.1993, thereby helping the son from his name being not rejected after scrutiny, and breaching the revised rules of BCCI.
GoaChronicle.com investigations reveal that when BCCI was made aware of this, it placed a fine of Rs 5000 on GCA and the cricketer, which was duly paid up.
Narvekar Files for Birth Certiticate
In his petition Dr Salkar states:
The birth of Dayanand Narvekar son’s appears to have taken place at the hospital ‘Chodankar Nursing Home’, at Porvorim, Goa, which falls within the limits of the area and the jurisdiction of the Village Panchayat of Pilerne. The said Dr. Ravindra G. Chodankar is the medical officer in-charge and the authorized medical attendant of said Chodankar Nursing Home and also a very close relative of Narvekar. It appears that, although in terms of section 8(1)(b), of ‘The Registration of Births and Deaths Act’, 1969, read with Rules 5(1) and 5(2)(b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1970, framed under section 30 of the said Act, (but now superseded by The Goa Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999), Dr. Ravindra G. Chodankar was duty bound to give within 14 days from the date of birth, the information of the birth of the accused Ganeshraj Narvekar to the Registrar for the Panchayat area of Village Panchayat of Pilerne, in Form 2 prescribed thereto, Dr. Ravindra G. Chodankar failed to do the same and rather suppressed the said information from being given to the Registrar without any reasonable cause. Thus the birth was not registered in the office of the Registrar for the Panchayat area of Village Panchayat of Pilerne, as evidenced by the ‘non-availability certificate’, dated 7.11.1994, issued by the Registrar for the said Panchayat area.
Records further reveals that on the basis of a ‘Live Birth Report’ dated 6.11.1994 issued, in Form No.2, as prescribed by Rule 5(1) of the 1970 Rules, then in force, by Dr. Ravindra G. Chodankar, the medical officer in-charge and the authorized medical attendant, of the hospital ‘Chodankar Nursing Home’, Porvorim, Goa, and on the basis of a ‘non-availability certificate’ dated 7.11.1994, issued by the Registrar for the Pilerne Panchayat area, an application dated 8.11.1994 along with an affidavit dated 8.11.1994, was filed by the Dayanand Narvekar before the Executive Magistrate of Bardez, Mapusa, Goa, purportedly under section 13(3) of the ‘Registration of Births and Deaths Act’, 1969’.
- At clause 3 of the said ‘Live Birth Report’, dated 6.11.1994, it has been mentioned that the name of the child is “Ganeshraj alias Anish Dayanand Narvekar”.
- At clause 4 of the said report, the place of birth of the child is shown as ‘Chodankar Nursing Home’, Alto-Pilerne.
- At clause 5 of the said ‘Live Birth Report’, the permanent residential address of the parents of the child is stated to be “Mapusa, Goa”.
- At clause 6(ii) and 7(ii), respectively of the said ‘Live Birth Report’, the father and the mother of the child are shown to be literate.
- At clause 12 of said ‘Live Birth Report’, under the heading ‘Type of attention at delivery’, it has been mentioned as “Hospital Attention”.
It is also pertinent to note that in the said affidavit dated 8.11.1994:
- At para 1, it has been mentioned that the name of the son is Ganeshraj alias Anish and his date of birth is mentioned as 28.2.1993. (Date of Birth Two)
- At para 2, it has been stated that the birth is not registered in any registration office of Birth and Death in India.
- At para 4(a) the name of the son is mentioned as Mast. Ganeshraj alias Anish Dayanand Narvekar.
- At para 4(d), the date of birth is shown as 28.2.1993.
- At para 6, it has been stated that the certificate of birth is required to be produced before the concerned authority for the purpose of education.
The petitioner further alleges that the Executive Magistrate Bardez, P. R. Borkar thereafter on the same day, i.e. on 8.11.1994, has passed an order bearing No.11/1/1993/MBR, purportedly under section 13(3) of the said 1969 Act, thereby ordering that the Registrar of Birth and Death of Village Panchayat of Pilerne, Bardez, should register the said birth in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules.
It may be relevant to note that from the above records it indicates that the name of the son is Ganeshraj alias Anish Dayanand Narvekar. The date of birth of the said son is 28.2.1993 and that the said birth was not registered in any registration office as on 8.11.1994, i.e. within one year of its occurrence.
Sushma Narvekar Files for Birth Certificate
Dr Salkar alleges that in order to enable himself to temper with the date of birth of his son, by preponing the same for educational purpose or by postponing the same for the sports purpose, Dayanand Narvekar thought of re-registering the birth of his son within the area of Mapusa Municipal Council, since he could not have manipulated the date of birth already registered within the area of Village Panchayat Pilerne, as the Secretary of the said Panchayat who is the Sub Registrar of birth and death for the said area, would not come under the control of his Ministry (which at that time was the Urban Development Ministry).
In order to carry out the aforesaid agenda and the sinister plan, Salkar alleges that Narvekar by using his public office as Urban Development Minister, made his wife to furnish information to the Sub Registrar of Mapusa Municipal Area, viz. Shri Ramkrishna Natekar, to get the date of birth of the son to be registered as 28.2.1992 (Date of Birth Three) with an object of first registering his son’s birth once again before the said Sub Registrar, and thereafter further manipulate the date by using his official position of Urban Development Minister. Accordingly, based on the information furnished and signed by the Sushma Narvekar on 27.1.1995, the date of birth of the son was entered as 28.2.1992 in the Register of Birth and Deaths (Part I –Live Birth), maintained by the Sub Registrar of Mapusa Municipal area under Rule 13 of the Act.
Based on the aforesaid information furnished by the wife on 27.1.1995, a ‘Live Birth Report’ in Form 2 was signed and issued by the wife, in which birth report it has been mentioned:
- At clause 1, that the date of birth is 28th February 1993.
- At clause 12, of said ‘Live Birth Report’, under the heading ‘Type of attention at delivery’, it has been mentioned as “Home Delivery”, after striking off the word operation.
It is pertinent to note here that wife had furnished two different dates of birth of the son to the Sub Registrar of Mapusa Municipal area, in as much as the date of birth of the son was mentioned as 28.2.1992 in the Register of Birth and Deaths (Part I –Live Birth), maintained by the Sub Registrar of Mapusa Municipal area under Rule 13 of the Act and as 28.2.1993 in the ‘Live Birth Report’ in Form 2 signed and issued by Sushma Narvekar. Both the aforesaid documents are duly signed by Sushma Narvekar
The aforesaid facts clearly indicate that although the birth had taken place on 28.2.1993 at Chodankar Nursing Home, the same fact was sought to be concealed by Narvekar in collusion with his wife who signed the said ‘Live Birth Report’.
From the records it appears that the above manipulation of showing the birth to have been occurred at home at Mapusa instead of the true fact that it had occurred at hospital at Porvorim, might have been done because of the fact that a ‘Live Birth Report’ from a hospital in Mapusa would have been difficult to be obtained and if the true fact that the birth had taken place at Porvorim hospital was disclosed, the registration at Mapusa would not have been possible, as the birth had taken place within the jurisdiction of a different Sub Registrar, and it would have been also revealed that the birth had been already registered before the Sub Registrar of the area of Village Panchayat Pilerne.
“It appears that accordingly the birth of the son was again registered on 27.1.1995 before the Sub Registrar of the Mapusa Municipality area, under registration No. 208, possibly on a false affidavit signed by the wife, inspite of the fact that no registration of a birth could be made at two different offices/places of two different Sub Registrars and the birth can be registered only before the Sub Registrar within whose jurisdiction the event of such a birth has occurred. The birth was registered for the second time before the Sub Registrar of Mapusa Municipality area, by concealing the earlier registration, with an oblique motive to achieve an ill design,” mentioned Dr Salkar in his petition.
A Different Date of Birth for School
It is interesting to note that although the registration of birth before the Sub Registrar at Mapusa under registration No.208, made on 27.1.1995, shows the date of birth as 28.2.1993, the birth certificate of the Ganeshraj Dayanand Narvekar, submitted to Shiksha Niketan School, Sangolda, Bardez, Goa, shows that the date of birth, registered under No. 208 on 27.1.1995, before the Sub Registrar at Mapusa, is 28.2.1992, i.e. exactly one year prior to the actual date of birth of 28.2.1993.
The school leaving certificate dated 24.4.2002 issued by Shiksha Niketan School shows that in June 1998 the Ganeshraj Narvekar was admitted to the primary school when actually he was five years old and not six years as was the required minimum age at the relevant time. This was the precise reason as to why another certificate in original showing the date of birth as 28.2.1992 was got issued by the Sub Registrar at Mapusa.
The aforesaid facts and the circumstances reveal that at the instance and under the influence of Dayanand Narvekar corruptly and maliciously, that the late Ramkrishna Natekar, the then Sub Registrar of Mapusa Municipal Area, had intentionally issued three different birth certificates of the accused no. 3 showing his date of birth as 28.2.1992, 28.2.1993 and 1.9.1993.
Dayanand Narvekar Speaks
When GoaChronicle.com spoke to Dayanand Narvekar on the criminal complaint filed against him and his family members, the Aldona MLA stated, that Dr Salkar had also filed a police complaint on this matter a year ago and the police are investigating into matter, forensic tests to establish that we have not forged any Birth certificate to give my son an undue advantage are being conducted. Even when this issue was raised by Board of Control for Cricket India (BCCI), Goa Cricket Association had been fined Rs 5000 and the matter was closed and my son continues to play cricket.
To clarify on the matter, Narvekar further added that my son’s birth was on 28.2.1993 and his birth is registered at the Panchayat of Pilerne. Even his Indian passport shows the birth-date as 28.2.1993. On the issue of the Birth Certificate at the Registrar of Mapusa Municipal, Narvekar revealed that his wife Sushma Narvekar had received a ‘Show-Cause’ notice from the Registrar asking for a clarification on the birth certificate which was issued by the Pilerne Panchayat, in which she clarified the details resulting in the confusion and that particular record showing the Birth Date as 28.02.1992 was cancelled on account of the error. Furthermore, Narvekar feels that he is being targeted by certain political elements aiming to thwart his chances in the upcoming elections by creating such baseless allegations against him and his family.
While the complaint now is matter of the court, it will be interesting to see whether it is case of forgery of certificates or a case of error on part of Dayanand Narvekar.