1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1282 OF 2010. Yadav Jangloo Bachune -: versus :- Assistant Registrar and others. WRIT PETITION No. 1283 OF 2010. Waman Ramrao Varkari -: versus :- Assistant Registrar and others. WRIT PETITION No. 1284 OF 2010. Waghoo Ganpat Kove -: versus :- Assistant Registrar and others. WRIT PETITION No. 1285 OF 2010. Mahadeo Jumudu Rohapate -: versus :- Assistant Registrar and others. WRIT PETITION No. 1286 OF 2010. Tulsiram Nagoji Keram -: versus :- Assistant Registrar and others. WRIT PETITION No. 1287 OF 2010. Rajeshwar Dhondba Thakare -: versus :- Assistant Registrar and others. WRIT PETITION No. 1319 OF 2010. Smt. Sakhubai Devrao Chawle -: versus :- Assistant Registrar and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 23, 2010. Heard Shri M.I. Dhatrak,, learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.Ps. for respondent no.1 and Shri Vikas Kulsange, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. The contention is, nomination form printed for election was itself defective in as much as at other places where contesting candidate was supposed to sign it used the word 'signature of candidate' while below declaration that word is not used and only word 'signature' has been put. It is contended that, that word 'signature' is above the 2 endorsement 'examined before me' and hence, all candidates [petitioners before this Court] were misled and they thought that, that signature on declaration is to be by the officer undertaking the scrutiny of nomination paper. It is contended that because of this defect in nomination paper, the nomination papers of petitioners have been rejected and it is also pointed out that few candidates were permitted to put their signature below the declaration at the time of scrutiny. Respective learned A.G.Ps., appearing for respondent no.1 Appellate Authority justify the order of rejection of nomination paper and contend that there is nothing confusing in the declaration. They point out that out of total 34 nominations received, about 23 nominations were properly filled in and three candidates were permitted to place their signature below the declaration at the time of scrutiny. They state that petitioners were not present at scrutiny and had they appeared, the defect could have been cured in their cases. With the assistance of learned A.G.Ps., as also the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2, I have perused the papers. The declaration is part of nomination paper and its bare perusal show that it is declaration by candidate. To expect returning officer to place his signature below that declaration is something which cannot be even imagine. The place for signature of officer undertaking scrutiny appears below the endorsement 'examined before me' and below it there is separate mention of seal and signature of that officer. I, therefore, find that there is no scope for any 3 confusion in the matter. No case is therefore made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. As the arguments of learned counsel raise some disputed question of facts, hence with liberty to petitioners to challenge rejection of their nomination paper in accordance with law before appropriate forum, present Writ Petitions are dismissed of with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.