1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR W.P.No.3524 of 2010 Ravi Anantrao Lambhade ..vs.. The Tahsildar – Election Officer and anr. 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 : JULY 30, 2010. Heard Mr.Adkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Sonare, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and MR.Chahande, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Advocate Adkar states that the objections raised by the petitioner has been rejected behind his back and after working hours i.e. at 9.00 O’clock in the night. His contention – respondent no.2 has allotted shop block to his daughter-in-law for long lease of 27 years and hence he is disqualified in view of the judgment of this court reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J.183 (Ashabai w/o Laxman Gawande ..vs.. Addl.Commissioner, Amravati Division Amt. and others). He contends that stay of respondent no.2 with his son or daughter in-law is not essential as even indirect interest is sufficient. Learned AGP and Advocate Chande state that the disputed question arises in this matter. Advocate Chande contends that there is no assertion of joint stay and said son is residing separately. 2 Advocate Adkar has alleged that as impugned order is passed in breach of principles of natural justice, the objections have to be restored and opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner so that all relevant facts can be shown to respondent no.1. The elections is scheduled on 8/8/2010. I find that prima facie some disputed questions had arisen in the matter. Hence, with liberty to petitioner to take appropriate steps as are open in law, present writ petition is not entertained. JUDGE chute