{1} wp108210.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1082 OF 2010 Nitin Nathu Salunkhe, age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Shewali, Tal. Sakri, District Dhule. Petitioner Versus 1 Chandrakant Pandit Deore, age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Mhasdi, Tal. Sakri, District Dhule. 2 The Returning Officer, Dhule Zilla Parishad / Panchayat Samiti, for General Elections 2008, Vaki, Block No.62, Tal.Sakri, District Dhule. 3 The Zilla Parishad, Dhule, Dhule. 4 The Panchayat Samiti, Sakri, Tal. Sakri, District Dhule. 5 The Collector, Dhule, Dhule. 6 Rajendra Ziman Pagare, age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Pimpalner, Tal. Sakri, District Dhule. Respondents {2} wp108210.odt Mr. Shrikant S. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.D.Bachate, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.D.S.Bagul, advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.D.R.Kale, A.G.P for respondent no.5. Respondents No.4 & 6 served. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 28 th January, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 In a pending Election Petition, an application was presented by the respondents seeking direction to the State Election Commission to produce record pertaining to the relevant election. 3 After considering all rival contentions, learned District Judge-1, Dhule, was pleased to allow the application by order dated 05.01.2010 below Exhibit-5 in Election Petition No.2/2008 and the said order is subjected to challenge in this writ petition. 4 I have heard the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for respective parties. In similar circumstances, an identical order is subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No. {3} wp108210.odt 540/2010 and after considering the rival contentions, this Court was pleased to direct stay of the said order. The matter was carried in Letters Patent Appeal No.63/2010 and the Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal, has directed the State Election Commission to preserve the relevant record until disposal of the Election Petition. 5 Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 – election petitioner submits that his client would be satisfied if similar directions, as issued in Letters Patent Appeal No.63/2010, are issued in the instant matter. It is also submitted by the Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 that the election petitioner – Respondent No.1 herein would not insist for production of the documents in the Court at present, however, would make a suitable request to the Court at an appropriate stage and it would be open for the Court, dealing with the Election Petition, to consider the request, if made at an appropriate stage. 6 Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, instant petition can be disposed of by directing the State Election Petition to preserve the record pertaining to the election until challenge raised in the Election Petition attains finality. It would be open for Respondent No.1 - election petitioner to renew his request at an appropriate stage by tendering a fresh application and it would be open for the Court, {4} wp108210.odt dealing with the Election Petition, to consider such a request, if made at an appropriate stage, in accordance with provisions of law. 7 In view of the directions, as aforementioned, the impugned order passed by District Judge-1, Dhule, below Exhibit-5 in Election Petition No.2/2008, stands quashed and set aside. 8 Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp108210