1 wp 9251.11 with group IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9251 OF 2011 Sheshrao Saluba Sapkal .. Petitioner Versus Returning Officer For Election to Municipal Council Bhokardan and ors. .. Respondents Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. Shri Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9257 OF 2011 Saraswati Sahebrao Ingle .. Petitioner Versus Returning Officer For Election to Municipal Council Bhokardan and ors. .. Respondents Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. Shri Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9258 OF 2011 2 wp 9251.11 with group Santosh Mohan Barse .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri G. V. Wani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri U. S. Malte, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Shri R. D. Nirmal, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9275 OF 2011 Mohammad Akram Salimoddin .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri C. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Shri G. K. Thigle, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9276 OF 2011 Geeta Sanjay Pandhare .. Petitioner Versus 3 wp 9251.11 with group Returning Officer Beed Municipal Council Election 2011 and another .. Respondents Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. Shri G. K. Thigale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9278 OF 2011 Shaikh Yunus S/o Shaikh Mujeeb .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri C. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Shri G. K. Thigle, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9255 OF 2011 Shakil Ahmed Isaq Qureshi .. Petitioner Versus The Returning Officer and others .. Respondents Shri Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. 4 wp 9251.11 with group WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9277 OF 2011 Hashmi Idris Ahmad Hashmi Ahmad .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri R. F. Totala, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Shri I. D. Maniyar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9348 OF 2011 Mohan Narayanrao Chormale .. Petitioner Versus Khatik Mahemood Khatik Habib and others .. Respondents Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9374 OF 2011 Sangeeta Sanjay Mahadik .. Petitioner 5 wp 9251.11 with group Versus The Returning Officer, Devlali Pravara Nagar Parishad and others .. Respondents Shri V. D. Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri U. S. Malte, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent No. 2. Shri Hanmant U. Dhage, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9382 OF 2011 Ashok Vithalrao Tidke .. Petitioner Versus Raj Amhed Sayyad Noor and others .. Respondents Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9383 OF 2011 Rajendra Rohidas Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents 6 wp 9251.11 with group Shri Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Shri Y. V. Kakade, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9379 OF 2011 Haseenabai Ismail Gavli .. Petitioner Versus The Returning Officer (Deputy Collector) Municipal Council Ambajogai and others .. Respondents Shri Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. Shri T. G. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9375 OF 2011 Usha Rajabhau Wapte .. Petitioner Versus The Returning Officer Municipal Council Majalgaon and others .. Respondents Shri Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. 7 wp 9251.11 with group WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9425 OF 2011 Abdul Khadir Abdul Razzaq .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri R. F. Totala, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9428 OF 2011 Farzana Salim Mansuri .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri D. M. Pardeshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri U. S. Malte, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9429 OF 2011 Yogesh Vasant Bichkar .. Petitioner 8 wp 9251.11 with group Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri D. M. Pardeshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri U. S. Malte, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9430 OF 2011 Sayeda Sahera Bano Shafioddin .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Ms. A. N. Ansari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri S. T. Shelke, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Shri S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the Caveator. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 07TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . All these writ petitions assail the order of the respective District Judges either accepting or rejecting the nomination papers for the election of various municipal councils. The learned counsel for petitioners relying on following judgments 9 wp 9251.11 with group i. Election Commission of India through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar and others reported in AIR 2000 S. C. 2979. ii. S. T. Muthusami Vs. K. Natarajan and others reported in AIR 1988 S. C. 616. iii. Mohd. Talib Mohd. Sadique Vs. Dr. A. S. Kuchewar reported in 2007(4) Mh. L. J. 557. iv. Rattan Anmol Singh and another Vs. Ch. Atma Ram and others reported in AIR 1954 S.C. 510. v. Mayaraju Ghavghave Vs. Returning Officer and another reported in 2004(5) Bom.C.R. 146. vi. Baburao Dattarao Budhwant Vs. The State Election Commission and another in Writ Petition No. 6594 of 2010. vii. Ganu Ram Vs. Rikhi Ram Kaundal reported in 1984 (3) SCC 649. strenuously contended that there is no bar for this Court to entertain the present petition even at this stage. The learned counsel contend that immediately after the appeals were decided by the District Judge, they have approached this Court and the polling is also postponed taking into account the fact that the District Judges decided the appeals belatedly. According to the learned counsel Article 243 (ZG) of the Constitution of India 10 wp 9251.11 with group would not operate as a total bar for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. For maintaining purity of the elections it is necessary to entertain the writ petitions. It is further contended that in some of the matters, the nomination forms which were rejected by the Returning Officer are directed to be accepted by the District Judge inspite of mandatory provision engrafted U/Sec. 9-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965, when patent illegality has been committed, this Court can intervene. 2. The learned counsel further contend that where intermediate stages are provided, there is bound to be delay and simply because the process of election has travelled further, the same should not be an impediment for the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The learned counsel for respondents submit that Article 243 (ZG) of the Constitution of India is a complete bar and this Court may not entertain the writ petitions in view of the said bar. Moreover, the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy available by way of an election petition. They can avail the same. The learned counsel contend that learned Single 11 wp 9251.11 with group Judge of this Court in a case of Vijaykumar Maniklal Bang Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1997(1) Mh. L. J. 637 has held that, even the order of District Judge cannot be reviewed by this Court in view of the bar engrafted under Article 243 (ZG). They also rely on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in a case of Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade Vs. Returning Officer reported in 2004 (Supp.) Bom. C. R. 01 and another Division Bench of this Court in a case of Farook Ali Khan Ilyas Khan and others Vs. Maharashtra State Election Commission and others reported in 1998 (2) Bom. C. R. 566. The learned counsel also rely on the following judgments : i. N. P. Ponnuswami Vs. The Returning Officer, Namakhal Constituency and others reported in AIR 1952 S. C. 64(1). ii. Durga Shankar Mehta Vs. Raghuraj Singh and others reported in AIR 1954 S.C. 520. iii. Dattatraya Narhar Pitale Vs. Vibhakar Dinkar Gokhale and another reported in 1875 BCI (0) 79. vi. Nanhoo Mal and others Vs. Hira Mal and others reported in AIR 1975 S.C. 2140(1). vii. The Election Commission of India Vs. Shivaji and others 12 wp 9251.11 with group reported in AIR 1988 S.C. 61. viii. Rama Mukharu Wakhare Vs. Kashinath Antaram Gahane and others reported in 1996(2) Bom. C. R. 463. ix. Jaspal Singh Arora Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1998 (9) SCC 594. x. Farook Ali Khan Ilyas Khan and others Vs. Maharashtra State Election Commission and others reported in 1998(2) Bom.C.R. 566. xi. Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade Vs. Returning Officer, Akot and another reported in 2004(Supp.) Bom. C. R.1. xii. Kurapati Maria Das Vs. M/s. Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajan and others reported in AIR 2009 S.C. 2475. 4. Shri S. T. Shelke and Shri U. S. Malte, the learned counsel for the Returning Officers and the Election Commission submit that the process of election is almost complete. Even the E. V. M. (Electronic Voting Machines) are sealed, the postal ballots are also dispatched. At this stage the Court may not interfere with the process of election and the petitioners have an alternate remedy of election petition. 5. No doubt the Apex Court in a case of Election 13 wp 9251.11 with group Commission of India through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar referred supra has held that the purity of elections has to be maintained but has also laid down word of caution that the Courts would be slow in interfering with the process of election. 6. It is true that there are no fetters on the powers of this Court of judicial review. But at the same time the period up to which the same can be exercised will have to be considered. Today almost all the stages of the election have culminated. Even as per the extended schedule the 02 nd and 03 rd December, 2011 were the last dates of withdrawal of nomination papers and the symbols were allotted on next date. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for Returning Officers that even the E. V. M. are sealed and postal ballots are dispatched and the polling is to be held on 11 th and 13 th December, 2011 in the respective municipal councils. 7. I would have considered the cases of the petitioners if the last date of withdrawal of nomination papers would not have elapsed. Today it would be inappropriate to intervene with the process of election, more particularly when all the stages have concluded and only polling has remained. 14 wp 9251.11 with group 8. Even otherwise the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy of election petition. The petitioners can avail the same. The orders passed by the District Judge would not be an impediment as any finding given by the District Judge at this stage would not be binding before election tribunal, where the election petitions would be filed. The findings at this stage would only be for the purpose of deciding the said appeals and will not have any binding nature. 09. In the light of the above the writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file the election petition as provided U/Sec. 21 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 or to avail any such remedy as is available to them under law. No costs. Authenticated copy be given to the parties to act upon. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11