1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7840 OF 2008 with WRIT PETITION NO. 1981 OF 2009 Shankar Vithoba Shinde ....Applicant V/s. Mandakini Balasaheb Shinde & Ors. ....Petitioners And The Talathi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. A. M.Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. V.S.Masurkar, G.P. With S.K.Chinchlikar,A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure & Shri.S.B.Shetye, Advocates for Respondent No.5. Mr.Pradeep Rajagopal for Election Commission of India. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : 26th February, 2009. P.C. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1981 of 2009 has challenged the impugned order dated 13th October, 2008, whereby after considering the objections raised by the Petitioner with regard to the inclusion of names of Mandakini Balasaheb Shinde, Respondent No.1 & Balasaheb Gajanan 2 Shinde, Respondent No. 2 in voters' list in Narwad Division No.281, Miraj Assembly Constituency and Waddi Division No.249, the concerned Officer issued notice and after hearing both the parties, deleted names of the Respondents from the voter’s list of Waddi, as the respondents names were appearing at two places. The contention that on 7th October, 2008 itself names of the respondents were already deleted from Narwad, so in this background, there was no occasion for the authority to pass this order again. 2. Admittedly, the present Writ Petition is dated 23rd January, 2009, challenging the deletion order dated 13th October, 2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Miraj,/Electoral Registration Officer (Miraj Assembly Constituency). Prior to this, the Petitioner has already filed an Application No. 15 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.7840 of 2008 and prayed to recall the order dated 18th December, 2008 passed by this court which is reproduced as under: “ The petition has been filed for inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the voters' list of Narvad Gram Panchayat, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli by quashing an order dated 15.11.2008 passed by the Talathi. An affidavit has been filed by Dr. Vikas Jaysingh Kharat, Tehsildar, Miraj, District Sangli in 3 which he has stated the the names of the petitioners will be added in the Narvad voters' list and as per form No.7, their names from Vaddi voters' list will be deleted. This will be effected in the final publication of the voters' list i.e. On 10.1.2009. 2. In view of this statement contained in the affidavit, which is accepted, the petition is disposed of.” 3. On this application by an order dated 9th January, 2009, on statement made by both the sides, this Court has directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the final voters' list for Narwad Gram Panchayat which was to be published on 10th January, 2009 and further directed not to proceed with the disqualification proceedings initiated by the applicant against Petitioners i.e. Mandakini Balasaheb Shinde & Balasaheb Gajanan Shinde in Writ Petition No.7840 of 2008, for a period of two weeks. That interim order has been in force, till this date. 4. Whatever, may be the grievance of the Petitioner. At this stage, it is very clear that the impugned order dated 13th October, 2008 was passed on application filed by the Petitioner/Applicant in the Application praying to delete the names of the respondents from the village-Narwad. The 4 concerned Officer, however, by order dated 13th October, 2008 deleted the names of the respondents from the Village-Waddi. This order dated 13th October, 2008 was reconfirmed by this Court by Order dated 18th December, 2008 on the basis of affidavit filed by the concerned Officer. 5. In the result, at this stage as this Court has also confirmed that order, I see there is no reason to interfere with the same at the instance of the Petitioner whose objection, as stated above, was considered while passing the impugned order. Even otherwise, the order dated 18th December, 2008 passed by this court based upon the affidavit filed by the concerned Officer, just cannot be overlooked at the instance of the Petitioner. Taking all this into account, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order. 6. The Civil Application filed by the Petitioner in Writ Petition is also therefore dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1981 of 2009 and applicant in Civil Application No.15 of 2009 submitted to continue the stay granted by this Court. Considering the fact, that it affects the basic constituency list of Miraj Constituency and that is the basic list of ensuing Parliament Elections, I see there is no reason to continue such order, therefore this application is also rejected. 5 (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)