1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1684 OF 2010 Arun Tanaji Gaikwad : Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. : Respondents. Mr. V S Talkute for the Petitioner. Mr. S N Patil, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. S B Shetye for Respondent No.2. CORAM : A M KHANWILKAR & R M SAVANT, JJ DATED : 05th April 2010 P.C. 1. The grievance in this Petition is that on account of the decision of the authorities, which is impugned in this Petition, Ward No.4 does not have continuity and is separated by different Ward Nos. in two halves on account of intervening Ward No.5 provided by the authorities. 2. To buttress this argument, reliance is placed on the sketch produced by the Petitioner at page Nos.28 and 35 respectively. Going by the said sketches, the argument seems to be 2 attractive. However, the counsel for the State Election Commission has produced authenticate copy of map (Not to Scale) prepared by the Talathi on the basis of which wards have been drawn by the Commission, which clearly indicates that Ward No.4 is one continuous ward and not separated by any other ward.. In that sense, the basis on which the present petition is maintained is incorrect, if not false. The fact that the house of the Petitioner is situated within the Ward No.4 is not in dispute. The Petitioner’s counsel is unable to point out as to what is the House No. of the Petitioner’s property. There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the map produced by the State Election Commission. The same is taken on record and marked “X” for the sake of identification. In view of the said map, there is no substance in the grievance of the Petitioner as aforesaid. 3. The other grievance of the Petitioner is that four houses are situated at the extreme end of Ward No.4 and are almost separated by over two kilometers distance. 3 4. The counsel for the Commission submits that instructions have already been issued to the concerned official to ensure that separate polling booth be provided to the voters residing in the said houses which are at the extreme end of Ward No.4. We find force in the submission of the counsel for the Commission. Inclusion of those houses in Ward No.4 was out of necessity. 5. As a result, this Petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. 6. We, however, make it clear that if the Petitioner is able to demonstrate before the Court on affidavit that the map produced before us by the Election Commission is misleading, it will be open to the Petitioner to get this Petition revived and all aspects that may arise for consideration will be examined on its own merits. (R M SAVANT, J.) (A M KHANWILKAR, J)