lpa128.11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.128 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2017 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4186 OF 2011. ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Mr.S.S. Thombre, Adv. for appellant. Mr. P.P. More, AGP for R.Nos 1 to 3. Mr. D.J. Chaudhari, Adv. for R.Nos.5 and 6. CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. 25th March, 2011. The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 22nd March, 2011. By this order, the learned Single Judge has refused to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant contending that Rule 36 lpa128.11 2 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 were violated. According to the appellant, his name has not been included in the voters' list and, therefore, he made an application for inclusion of his name. The order was passed in terms of Rule 36(12) of the said Rules whereby the name of the appellant was included in the voters' list subject to any objection which could be raised by any person affected. It appears that objections were raised in respect of the inclusion of the appellant's name in the voters' list. These objections were heard and decided by the Returning Officer who has jurisdiction to entertain such objections. The Returning lpa128.11 3 Officer has found that the objections were genuine and, therefore, has deleted the name of the appellant from the voters' list. The final voters' list was published thereafter. 2 In our view, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. All aspects of the matter have been considered. Apart from this, the order passed under Rule 36(12) of the said Rules by the Returning Officer indicating that the appellant's name has been included in the voters' list subject to objections has not been challenged in the petition as noted by the learned Single Judge. 3 In our opinion, therefore, lpa128.11 4 there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal dismissed. Civil Application stands disposed of. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J) kadam/