(1) WP. 5686.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5686 OF 2010 Bastiram Babu Naik .. PETITIONER VERSUS Ratnakaur Darbarsing Raul and ors. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate h/f. Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for the respondent no.1 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 13TH JULY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's contention is that the respondent no.1 is ineligible to participate in the election of the A.P.M.C. Nandurbar. The petitioner alleges that income of the respondent no.1 is more than Rs.18,000/- and therefore she cannot file the nomination from economically weaker member's constituency. The respondent no.1 filed certificate of the Tashildar regarding she being member of the economically weaker section. The matter is under (2) WP. 5686.2010 enquiry before the Tahsildar after the remand as per order of the Sub Divisional Officer. 2. The question of income of the respondent no.1 is a disputed question of fact. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that now due to amended provisions of A.P.M.C. rules, appeal is not provided against the election result. He would therefore submit that the respondent no.1 may not be allowed to contest the ensuing elections. The objection was not raised before the Returning Officer. Unless such objection is specifically raised before the Returning Officer, it would not be proper to prohibit the respondent no.1 from contesting the election from the constituency of economically weaker member's section. In case there is no appellate remedy provided for, the petitioner can challenge election itself by filing Writ Petition if the respondent no.1 is successful in the election. 3. At present, neither there is result of election nor there is result of the enquiry about (3) WP. 5686.2010 financial status of the respondent no.1. Hence the Petition is disposed of without giving any finding on merits. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp