1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2683 OF 2010 Sow. Anita W/o Nandkumar Ghodele } Age : 40 Years, Occ. Household, } R/o : Gandhi Nagar, Bansilalnagar, } Aurangabad. } ..... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra } } 2. The State Election Commissioner } Through the Commissioner, } State Election Commission, } Maharashtra State } Mumbai. } 3. The Returning Officer } (Shri Subhash Shinde ) } for the Election Ward Office “ F ” } (Kabir Nagar), Aurangabad, } Municipal Corporation Health Centre} Ulka Nagari, Aurangabad. } 4. Sow. Deepali W/o Manikrao Kamble} Age : 35 Years, Occ. Household, } R/o : H.No. 220, Eknath Nagar, } Aurangabad. } 5. The Municipal Corporation } Aurangabad through the } Commissioner. } .... RESPONDENTS 2 Mr. D.P.Palodkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K.Kadam, Assistant Govt. Pleader. Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no. 5. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29/03/2010 JUDGMENT : [ PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. Heard Mr. D.P.Palodkar, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. S.K.Kadam, Assistant Govt. Pleader, Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no. 5. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she has filed her nomination form for contesting the general elections of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation from Ward No. 92, which is reserved for other backward class ( woman ). It is her further contention that the respondent no. 4 had also filled in her nomination form from said Ward No. 92. The nomination form of respondent no. 4 was rejected by the Returning Officer as she failed to produce the validity certificate at the time of scrutiny and within the extended time granted by the Returning Officer. It is the further contention of the petitioner that after the nomination form of respondent no. 4 was rejected, still surprisingly her name appeared in the list of valid nominated candidates published by 3 the respondent no. 3. 3. Mr. S.T. Shelke, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the respondent no. 4 had submitted the validity certificate immediately upon the scrutiny and as such the nomination form of respondent no. 4 was declared as valid. 4. Be that as it may, the list of validly nominated candidates has been published and the Returning Officer on satisfying himself, has accepted the nomination form, as the respondent no. 4 has submitted the validity certificate. 5. Even otherwise, the voting is scheduled on 11/4/2010 and the list of valid nominated candidates has been published. The process of election can not be interfered with. The petitioner has a remedy of filing Election Petition if he so desires. 6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 2683.10