1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8351 OF 2010 Sau. Vimalbai w/o Vasantrao Deshmukh, R/o-Karanjkheda, Tq-Kannad, Dist-Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The State Election Commission, 3) The Collector, Aurangabad, 4) The Tahsildar, Kannad, Tq-Kannad, Dist-Aurangabad, 5) The Returning Officer, Group Gram Panchayat, Karanjkheda, Tq-Kannad, Dist-Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.R.M. Deshmukh Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. Shri.S.T. Shelke Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner contested the election for membership of Group Grampanchayat Karanjkheda, Tq- Kannad, Dist-Aurangabad. The Petitioner contended that she filed nomination paper mentioning her name as "Deshmukh Vimalbai Vasantrao". The copy of nomination notice Exhibit B (Page 69) mentions her name accordingly. The nomination check list also mentions her name accordingly. But in the final list of validly nominated candidates for the purpose of election under Rule 14(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959 (page 71 of the paper book) at serial No.9 the Petitioner's name was mentioned as "Deshmukh Nirmalabai Vasantrao". The Petitioner contends that Ballot Paper was also printed in the name of "Deshmukh 3 Nirmalabai Vasantrao". On the date of voting i.e. on 5th September 2010, it was noticed and the Petitioner complained to the Returning Officer about the same but he did not correct the mistake. The voting took place and the Petitioner lost by three votes, according to the learned counsel. 3. It is submitted that the name of the Petitioner was correctly mentioned in the declaration of result as "Deshmukh Vimalbai Vasantrao" (Page 79). Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that election for the post of Sarpanch is to be held shortly, the said election be stayed and the election of Ward No.6, be set aside by passing consequential orders. 4. We have heard learned counsel Shri. Shelke appearing for the State Election Commission. The counsel submits that on 6th September, 2010 the returning officer submitted the final declaration of the election under the provisions of the Bombay Village Gram Panchayat 4 Act, 1958 and Rules framed thereunder. The Petitioner has alternate statutory remedies to challenge the election result. The election process for electing Sarpanch is already set in motion and in the light of the alternate remedy and developments, extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court need not be exercised. 5. We have heard the submissions, perused the documents placed on record. We find that the election results are already declared on 6th September, 2010. The Petitioner may resort to alternate remedies in case the Petitioner desires so. As the election process of electing Sarpancha is already set in motion, we would not interfere in the same. Even otherwise, at this stage, we do not find convincing reason to stay the election being held for the post of Sarpanch. 6. The Petitioner has annexed copy of the communication addressed to the State Election Commission dated 10th September, 2010 in respect 5 of her grievances. Apart from the merits of the issue raised by the Petitioner, we observe that that State Election Commissioner would independently call for the report from the Returning Officer in respect of the grievances made by the Petitioner addressed to the State Election Commissioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. It is made clear that the dismissal of the Writ Petition shall not affect the alternate proceedings, which the Petitioner would undertake, in respect of her defeat in the election. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/SEPT10/wp8351.10