1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2835 OF 2009. VIJAY SOMNATHJI BAJPAI, R/O. ARVI, DISTT. WARDHA. .. VERSUS .. (1) REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, (2) THE COLLECTOR, WARDHA, (3) RO, SDO, ARVI, DISTT. WARDHA & (4) NAGORAO CHAMPATRAO LODE, ARVI, DISTT. WARDHA. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2836 OF 2009. PRASHANTSINGH HARJITSINGH THAKUR, R/O. ARVI, DISTT. WARDHA. .. VERSUS .. (1) REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, (2) THE COLLECTOR, WARDHA, (3) RO, SDO, ARVI, DISTT. WARDHA & (4) SAU.KANCHAN CHANDAN LOHE, ARVI, DISTT. WARDHA. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.R.Saboo, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri D.B.Patel & Smt. I.L.Bodade, A.G.Ps. for Respondents No.1 to 3. Shri R.D.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : MARCH 04, 2010. 1. These petitions by Councilors of Municipal Council, Arvi are directed against orders passed by the Returning Officer rejecting their objections to the nomination of respondent No.4 in the respective petition, for the post of President and Vice President on the ground that those objections were received after the nominations were scrutinized and were accepted. The petitioners had preferred appeals before the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, who rejected the appeals holding that the process of scrutiny is a sort of ‘summary disposal’ and the 2 question whether disqualification has been incurred or not is subject of detailed scrutiny. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.4 as also the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No.1 to 3. 3. The order passed by the Returning Officer has resulted in virtually leaving no time to the objectors, who may be desirous of filing objections to the nominations. The election programme shows that the nomination papers were to be filed up to 2.00 p.m. on 12.06.2009. They were to be scrutinized after 2.00 p.m. on the same day and decision after scrutiny of nomination papers was to be rendered up to 5.00 p.m. on the same day. Since the objector could not have objected to the nomination before it was filed, the programme should have stipulated some time limit for filing objections before the scrutiny was undertaken. Now, if nominations were to be filed till 2.00 p.m. objections could not have been filed till then and since an objector would not know by what time the scrutiny would be over, he would be rendered remedyless because only after nomination is filed could the objection be spelt out. Therefore, some time gap should have been left, in the election programme, for filing of the objections, which the authorities would, undoubtedly, look into in future. 4. The learned counsel for both the petitioners submits that since the appellate authority-Regional Director of Municipal Administration has already stated that the objections as regards disqualification require detailed 3 scrutiny, he would be filing appropriate proceedings under Section 44 of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils) (Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and therefore, seeks leave to withdraw these petitions with liberty to raise all the contentions in the said proceedings. 5. The petitions are, therefore, disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. JUDGE RR..