1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2684 OF 2010 Suresh S/o Sanduji Ingale .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Election Commission and others .. Respondents Shri P. G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri V. D. Hon, Advocate for the Respondents No. 3. Shri Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 30TH MARCH, 2010. ORAL ORDER [Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] : . Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges order passed by the Returning Officer on the ground that one of the nomination papers wwas rejected. The Returning Officer should have accepted the 2 nomination form of the respondent No. 3 as an independent candidate. The counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that an independent candidate is required to submit signatures of five persons as proposers. In this case, the respondent No. 3 has filed signature of only one proposer. 3. Learned counsel for the State Election Commission submitted that clarifications were asked from Election Commission and mean while it was informed by the State Election Commission to the Commissioner Aurangabad Municipal Corporation that in case a candidate is unable to submit the authorization of the concerned political party then, the nomination paper of said candidate shall be accepted as an independent one. No sooner this was received, the Returning Officer corrected the mistake and passed order of acceptance of nomination paper. 4. Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submitted that in fact, he had authorization of the party in AB Form, but as there were two different tables, he could not produce it at appropriate stage. 3 5. We find that in the provisions of Section 16 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 remedy is provided to a person who is aggrieved by improper acceptance and rejection of nomination papers. The election programme is annexed with the petition. The election process is already set in motion. In the light of the fact that, there is alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. 6. The disposal of petition should not affect the petitioner's right in case the petitioner desires to resort to any alternate efficacious remedy. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/Mar.10