1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2685 OF 2010 Abasaheb S/o Kisan Wankhede } Age : 41 Years, Occ. : Business, } R/o : Mahatma Phule Housing Society Jatwada Road, Harsul, Plot No. 45, } Aurangabad. } ..... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Mangesh S/o Rangnath Waghule Age : 24 Years, Occ. : Nil, } R/o : Lahuji Nagar, Harsul, } Aurangabad. } 2. The State Election Commissioner Maharashtra State } 3. Assistant Election Result Officer Election 2010 } Municipal Corporation, } Aurangabad, Ward “ A ” } 4. Municipal Corporation, } Aurangabad, through its } Commissioner. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. V.D.Solunke, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt. Pleader. Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no. 1 & 4. Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. 2 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29/03/2010 JUDGMENT : [ PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. Heard respective counsels for the parties. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to “ Mahar ” community and the respondent no. 1 belongs to “ Mang ” community. Both the castes are recognized as Scheduled Caste. The petitioner and the respondent no. 1 had filled in their nomination forms from Ward No. 1, Harsul, which is reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. It is further contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 1 submitted two nomination forms, one in the name of Mangesh Rangnath Waghule and another in the name of Mangesh Rangnath Wahule. It is the contention of the petitioner that the name of respondent no. 1 appears in the voters list as Wahule and as such his first nomination form is not according to the voters list. The caste certificate of the respondent no. 1, according to the petitioner, is in the name of Waghule. The petitioner has raised an objection to reject the nomination form of the respondent no. 1, but the Returning Officer accepted the nomination form of the respondent no. 1. According to the petitioner, the Returning Officer has illegally accepted the nomination form of the respondent no. 1. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 claims to be the candidate of National Congress party. 3 In the column ‘ symbol ’, it is mandatory to give 3 symbols. However, respondent no. 1 has given only one symbol i.e. ‘ Panja ’. However, it is not a symbol of Congress ‘ I ’, still the nomination form is accepted. 3. The Returning Officer has accepted the nomination form of the respondent no. 1 after scrutinizing the same and after coming to the conclusion that his name appears in the voters list. The objection of the petitioner is rejected as the name of the respondent o. 1 appears in the voters list. 4. As per the election programme, the list of valid contested candidates is to be published on 30/03/2010and the voting is scheduled on 11/4/2010. The election process can not be interfered with at this stage. The petitioner if so desirous, has a remedy of filing Election Petition. 5. In light of the above aspect, the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 2685.10