1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1782 OF 2010. Harsha Prakash Udbagale -: versus :- The Collector, Amravati and another. WRIT PETITION No. 1783 OF 2010. Rahul Prakash Udbagale -: versus :- The Collector, Amravati and another. 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 : APRIL 20, 2010. 1. Both the petitioners are real sister and brother whose nomination forms have been rejected because tax in relation to house property standing in the name of uncle of their father has not been paid. 2. Shri A.S. Kilor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that in order rejecting nomination papers or that in objection as raised, it is no where pointed out that a bill for demand was served upon the said uncle and inspite of service of said bill, tax has not been paid. He further argues that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Angha Ajit Bhatkar .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others (2006 [6] Mh.L.J. 13), such demand bill has to be for each quarter of a year separately and as the 2 demand bill enclosed along with the reply dated 25.07.2009 does not fulfill that requirement, the alleged default in payment of tax is not substantiated. He further points out that there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioners and uncle of their father namely Sadashiv constituted a joint family property. 3. Learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents on the other hand relies upon the reply affidavit filed and states that petitioners and uncle of their father namely Shri Sadashiv formed joint family property. It is further states that as the relevant details are not given in the nomination papers, a disputed question of fact arise and this Court should not therefore interfere in the matter. 4. With the assistance of respective counsel, I have perused the papers. The petitioner Harsha, in her nomination paper has mentioned property at Ward no.3 i.e. a residential house as belonging to her. Nomination paper submitted by her brother Rahul again mentions one residential house, but does not give its ward number. Both of them have not disclosed that they are residing in house of their fathers' uncle Sadashiv. The reports placed on record by respondents show that they are residing in the house of their fathers uncle Sadashiv. The report however does not disclose that they are residing as member of one family. The certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat on 12.04.2010 mentions that in the name of their father Prakash, a vacant plot is lying, but it is not assessed to any tax. 3 5. In view of this position on record, it is apparent that the petitioners are not in a position to point out to this Court conclusively that the rejection of their nomination paper by respondents is arbitrary and can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. Some disputed questions of fact arise and therefore, petitioners have to take recourse to remedy of Election Petition in accordance with law. 6. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.