1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1135 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1135 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Mayure for Petitioner, Advocate Mr. Bhagat holding for Mr. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. 2. Petitioner is found disqualified for not pointing out his conviction under section 39 (1) of Indian Electricity Act in his nomination paper. Shri Mayure contends that the conviction has been suspended by Appellate Court and, therefore, petitioner cannot be declared disqualified. His further argument is as appeal is pending the conviction has not attained finality. Shri Bhagat for Respondent No.2 and learned A.G.P. Mr. Korde support the impugned order. They state the order of conviction is not stayed by the Appellate Court. 3. It is apparent that Appellate Court has merely suspended the conviction. The 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1135 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. suspension of conviction does not wipe out the same and hence view taken by lower authority cannot be said to be either erroneous or perverse. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:23/02/2011. ans/1135