1 wp 7900.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7900 OF 2011 Vanmalabai Shrikisan Lagad .. Petitioner Versus Additional Commissioner Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and others .. Respondents Shri M. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Additional Commissioner rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the respondent No. 2. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination of the petitioner for the election to the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 8/Karkhana. Shri M. S. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the 2 wp 7900.11 petitioner strenuously contends that, the ground on which the nomination paper has been rejected is absolutely erroneous. The nomination paper has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount of enhanced share capital. In fact, nomination paper could not have been rejected on the said ground. Even otherwise, the time was extended for the payment of said amount. The learned counsel contends that ex-facie the order is illegal and same can be considered in the present petition. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have perused the election programme. Even the voting is to take place, the same is to take place on 15 th October, 2011. Today it is 13 th October, 2011. No orders can be passed in absence of respondents and without disturbing the election programme, the same cannot be done. Even otherwise, the petitioner has an alternate remedy in the shape of election petition. The petitioner is at liberty to prosecute the said remedy. 3. In view of the above conspectus of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file 3 wp 7900.11 election petition if so advised. If such an election petition is filed the authority shall consider the same on its own merits. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11