1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 672 OF 2006 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. FEBRUARY 17, 2006. Heard Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner. The application under Section 21(7) of Municipalities Act for summoning and examining Returning Officer has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that no case for that purpose is made out. In order to examine the necessity of summoning such Returning Officer, the trial Court has also made certain observations on the merits of the matter i.e. insofar as evidence which has come on record is concerned. Shri Khapre, learned counsel contends that the order is bad in law and the Returning Officer has to enter witness box to explain the anomalies. The argument cannot be accepted. It is for 2 the Returning Officer to decide whether he wants to enter the witness box or not and law can take its own course in the matter. Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that application for inspection and scrutiny of rejected ballot papers is still pending and the observations made in the impugned order will come in the way of petitioner while getting said application decided. It is apparent that if a case for scrutiny of rejected ballot papers or for its recounting is made out, the Court below will be competent to examine such request and entertain it on its own merit and I do not find any observation which would come in the way of petitioner in that event in the impugned order. No case is made out for interference in the impugned order. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE *GS.