1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7229 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11933 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12932 OF 2010 Bharti Anil Savant, Age: 30 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Galan (Bk), Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Sushilabai w/o Yuvraj Savant, Age: 61 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Galan (Bk),Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for appellant - applicant. Shri. P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for respondent No.2. Shri. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. .... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 20TH OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 2. Shri. M.S. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is impugned herein, is erroneous and is causing prejudice to the interest of the appellant. The appellant seeks amendment in Letters Patent Appeal to the effect that respondent No.1 was declared elected member of Village Panchayat, after the Writ Petition was disposed of. The Counsel submits that filing of Election Petition for resorting to any other remedy would not serve the purpose of the appellant, in the light of order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Counsel submits that order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside. 3. Shri. P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that respondent No. 1 was declared elected and therefore, the challenge raised to order passed by the learned Single Judge, does not survive now. The Counsel submits 3 that the appellant may resort to appropriate remedies, in case the appellant is desirous to challenge the election of respondent No.1. The learned Counsel opposes the application seeking leave to amend the Letters Patent Appeal. 4. We have perused the impugned order. It is admitted fact that after the Writ Petition was disposed of, by the learned Single Judge, the election results were declared and respondent No.1 was declared elected. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on an order passed by us in Letters Patent Appeal Stamp No. 25078 of 2010 arising out of the proceedings of Writ Petition NO. 7703 of 2010. We have perused the said order. 5. We do not find any patent illegality for interfering in the impugned order. There is subsequent development in the matter. Respondent No.1 is declared elected. In this view of the 4 matter, no interference is called for in the Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 6. In the light of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, both the Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly. sd/- sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] SUT/OCT10/lpa239.10