1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3466/2010. Sursh Shamraoji Kukade -: VERSUS :- The Returning Officer for village Panchayat and another. 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 : AUGUST 02, 2010. Heard Shri F.T. Mirza, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri K.S. Narwade, learned Counsel for Respondent no.2 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Contention is, nomination paper has been rejected for alleged non payment of amount of Rs. 37,956/-. Learned Counsel for petitioner states that in order to attract disqualification the amount is shown to be legally due and recoverable. As Collector, has not passed any orders under Section 178[2] of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, the amount is not due and hence there is no question of disqualification. Learned A.G.P. states that preliminary inquiry has been conducted by the Chief Executive Officer and in it the amount has been found due since 24.07.2007. The petitioner 2 was directed to deposit the amount and otherwise he was warned that proceedings would be forwarded to the Collector under Section 179 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act for recovery. Shri Narwade, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 states that under Rule 11 of the Election Rules, failure to comply with any provisions of Rules is also a valid reason. Here there was already a direction to petitioner who happens to be Ex-Sarpanch and inspite of that directions he failed to deposit that amount. His contention is, in such circumstances, merely because there is no order of Collector the inference that petitioner is not disqualified, cannot be drawn. According to him, the amount of recovery is not in dispute since 2007. After hearing respective Counsel, prima facie at this stage it is revealed that amount of Rs. 37,956/- is found recoverable from petitioner by the Chief Executive Officer. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore, rejected. No costs. The disputed questions which arise are kept open for adjudication by the competent Authority, if petitioner wants to approach such forum. JUDGE Rgd.