1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6890 OF 2010 Shivnanda w/o Mohan Malgunde .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State Election Commission & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. H.V. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for respondent no. 1. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, advocate for respondent no. 3. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 13 th SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Acceptance of nomination paper tendered by respondent no. 3 is subjected to challenge in the instant petition by the petitioner. 2 Respondent no. 3 tendered her nomination paper with a view to contest the election to the seat of member of village panchayat Durg Sawangi Tq. & Dist. Hingoli for a reserved seat earmarked for OBC category. Nomination paper of the concerned respondent was directed to be accepted by the Returning Officer which order is subjected to challenge in 2 this petition. 3 At the time of issuance of notice, this court permitted respondent no. 3 to participate in the election and it was observed that the declaration of result will be subject to final outcome of the petition. It is informed that respondent no. 3 is a returned candidate at the election from the concerned ward. The Returning Officer has also presented affidavit in reply and contended that infact the concerned respondent did not present proof of tendering of caste certificate for the purpose of verification to the Scrutiny Committee, alongwith the nomination paper. He has also admitted in affidavit in reply that the order in respect of acceptance of nomination paper was erroneous. Since the elections are already over, it is open for the petitioner to raise challenge to the election by presenting election petition as contemplated by section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The court dealing with the election petition would obviously take into account all the aspects including affidavit tendered by the Returning Officer before this court informing that the acceptance of nomination paper of respondent no. 3 was infact erroneous act and that she did not present proof of tendering of caste certificate for verification to the scrutiny committee at the time of presentation of nomination paper. 3 4 In view of availability of alternate remedy, no interference is required to be caused in the instant petition. Petition stands rejected. 5 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp6890.10.odt