1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7416 OF 2010 Manda Machindra Veer ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr.S.S. Thombre, advocate for petitioner Mr.S.T. Shelke, advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 Mr.N.H. Borade, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 18 th August, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The question is whether the third child born to the petitioner was born after the cut of date i.e. 12th September, 2001. According to the petitioner, the third child was born on 30th May, 2000 as per the birth certificate (Exh.C). This certificate is issued on 13th August, 2010. The scrutiny was held on 9th August, 2010, and therefore, post scrutiny certificate can not be availed for the present. The counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on copy of certificate which seems to have been issued by the Medical Officer of Primary Health Center, Shendurwada, which purports to show that the petitioner had undertaken family planning operation on 2 10.04.2002. On the basis of such certificate, it is submitted that there could not be birth of the third child within few days after a family planning operation. The copy of the said certificate does not appear any date nor it was produced at the time of scrutiny. The counsel submits that no opportunity was given. When the respondent no.3 carried out the scrutiny, the school leaving certificate (Exh.B) dated 09.08.2010 was considered and on that basis it has been held that the third child was born after the cut off date and hence the petitioner was ineligible to contest the election. 3. Under the present circumstances, the disputed questions of facts can not be entertained in order to stall the election process in view of the “Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade V/s Returning Officer, Akot and another” {2003(4) Mh.L.J. 359}. The Petition is not maintainable at this juncture. The Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the election by filing regular election petition and if the respondent no.4 to be declared as unopposed then such declaration may not be brought in effect for three weeks giving sufficient time to the petitioner to challenge such election though the results may be declared formally. The observations made in this order be not considered in other proceedings including election petition. 3 3. The parties to act upon this order duly authenticated by the Court Shirestedar. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp7416.10