(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 407 OF 2011 Anusayabai w/o. Subhashrao Jawale, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Asola, Taluka & District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Cooperation & Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, and 6 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. One of the contentions is, Sarubai Jawale, who happened to be member of respondent no.7 / Cooperative Society, has already expired. The contention is sought to be raised by placing reliance on certificate issued by the Grampanchayat. The challenge is to the order accepting nomination paper of respondent no.5. 3. Mr. M.P. Kale, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that the respondent no.5 has taken advantage of similarity of name of the petitioner with the name of deceased Sarubai. His another contention is, the respondent no.2 / Election Officer has not adhered to relevant rules. He has further contended that the election programme declared by the Election Officer is not in accordance with law and, therefore, it needs to be changed and new election programme should be declared. 4. Mr. D.R. Korde, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, contends that there (3) is no prayer for new election programme and disputed questions about identity of respondent no.5 arise. 5. Merely by showing a death certificate, it cannot be presumed that the respondent no.5 has impersonated and she is posing herself to be a member of respondent no.5 / Society. There ought to have been some other mater produced by the petitioner to substantiate the contention. In the absence of that material, the contention cannot be looked into. There is no prayer for setting aside the election programme though there is prayer to change Election Officer. 6. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 7. With liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before appropriate forum, after election is over, present petition is disposed of. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp407