1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1675 of 2011 [DR. S. NARAYAN MURTHY ..VS.. RASHTRASANT TUKDOJI MAHARAJ, NAGPUR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Firdos Mirza, advocate for petitioner Shri B.G. Kulkarni, advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 13, 2011. Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University on 2.4.2011 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Returning Officer, rejecting the nomination paper filed by the petitioner for contesting the election to the Board of Studies for Physical Education on the ground that he was not qualified for contesting the election. On reading of the impugned order and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not the senior most approved teacher in his college and hence he could not have been designated as the Head of the Department by the petitioner himself, he being the Principal of the college. On reading of the impugned order along with the reply filed by the respondent, it prima facie appears that there is a serious 2 dispute whether the petitioner was the senior-most approved teacher in the college or whether Mr. Mahalle was the senior most approved teacher in the college. This court is not inclined to entertain this petition as disputed questions of facts are are involved herein. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner the Returning Officer could not have rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner when the petitioner's name was included in the voters list, is liable to be rejected, for the reason that there cannot be an estoppel in such a case where it is found that the petitioner was not the senior- most approved teacher in the college and he could not have been designated as the Head of the Department. Merely because an objection to the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the voters list was not raised at the relevant time, it could not be said that the objections in regard to the nomination of the petitioner for contesting election also could not have been raised at a subsequent point of time on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to contest the election. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP