1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8015 OF 2010 Sandipan s/o Baba Gangarde .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Y.M. Kshirsagar, AGP for the State. Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for respondent no. 2. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 3 rd SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Nomination paper tendered by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is in arrears of dues. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that ‘no dues’ certificate is dt. 21-8-2010 and the dues are stated to have been cleared on the said date. The receipt in respect of presentation of nomination paper annexed alongwith the petition records two different dates of presentation; one is 21-8-2010 and the another date recorded below said date is 20-8-2010. It is not clear as to on which date the nomination paper is presented. As such, it cannot be ascertained 2 as to whether on the date of presentation of the nomination paper, the petitioner was in arrears of payment of dues. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to provisions of section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act and contended that there was infact no notice issued to him in respect of the alleged recovery and as such, he cannot be said to be disqualified within meaning of section 14(1)(h) of the Act. 3 Question involved in the petition involves investigation of the factual aspects. Apart from this, the program of election has reached advanced stage. The symbols are already allotted to the contesting candidates on 25-8-2010 and the votes are scheduled to be recorded day after tomorrow i.e. on 5-9-2010. In view of the fact that the program of election has reached advanced stage and only votes are remained to be recorded, it would not be feasible to cause interference at this stage. Petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy of challenging the election after completion of the process. In exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for in the instant petition. Petition therefore stands rejected. 3 4 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp8015.10.odt