1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5347 OF 2010 Sarangdhar Shankar Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Election Commission of State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri K. N. Lokhande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 4. Shri R. G. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 04TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : . By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the notification dated 28.05.2010 issued after rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner when the panchanama in respect of reservation was drawn on 19.04.2010, it was decided 2 that one post for the Scheduled Caste candidate would be reserved in Ward No. 1. However, when the draft notification came to be issued the aforesaid reservation was withdrawn. The petitioner accordingly lodged his objections with the authorities and the objection came to be dismissed by the authorities. The order dealing with the objections submitted by the petitioner clearly states that as per the Census of 2001, the population of the Scheduled Caste is 89, while that of the Scheduled Tribe is 723 out of total population of 2074. 2. In the light of law dealing with providing seats for the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe candidates, no reservation could be provided for S. C. candidates. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who states that since initially one post was reserved for S. C. candidates, the withdrawal of said reservation is arbitrary and colourable exercise of powers warranting interference in the order at the behest of this Court. Mr. Shelke, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has urged before us that in the light of the Census of 2001, the population of the S. C. did not necessitate a post being reserved. 3 4. We have examined the documents and we do not find any error on the part of the respondents in withdrawing the reservation for the post of S. C. candidate while issuing draft notification and in the rejection of the objections submitted by the petitioner. The petition being thus devoid of any merit is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/Aug.10