1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3478/2010. Mahendra Madhukar Badhe -: VERSUS :- State of Maharashtra 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 : AUGUST 02, 2010. Heard Shri S.A. Mohta, learned Counsel for petitioner, Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 3, Shri L.H. Kothari, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and Shri Band, learned Counsel for proposed intervenor. Shri Mohta, learned Counsel relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported at 2009 [5] BCR 846 (Deepak Vishwasrao Khule .vrs. Collector and others) to urge that as the notice of demand was never served upon the petitioner there is no question of petitioner paying any property tax, and Section 14[1][h] of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act is not attracted. He therefore, states that even explanation which requires such tax to be paid on a date prior to the last date of nomination, is not attracted. 2 Learned A.G.P. as also Shri Kothari, learned Counsel for respondents dispute the position. According to them, the tax for last 4 years are not paid. They have also stated that notice of demand was duly served upon the petitioner. Shri band, learned Counsel for proposed intervenor, states that with his application for intervention, he is filing demand notice along with acknowledgment. Shri Mohta, is disputing this and according to him the demand was never served upon the petitioner. It is apparent that disputed questions of facts arise in the present matter. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. With liberty to present petitioner to approach the competent forum, Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.