1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4338 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 21.06.2011. 1. Heard Mr.Y.V.Kakade, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns the order, whereby the objection for acceptance of the nomination paper of Respondent No.4 of the petitioner was disallowed. So also assails the order rejecting his nomination paper. Under the statute an appeal is provided against the order rejecting the nomination paper. As such in view of that the present Writ Petition is not entertained as far as rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner is concerned. Mr.Kakade, learned counsel 2 submits that the nomination paper of the Respondent No.4 has been illegally accepted. The Returning Officer while accepting the nomination paper and rejecting objection of the petitioner has not considered the merits of the matter and the fact that the proposal of the Respondent No.4 was also not sent, still, has accepted the nomination paper. According to the learned counsel Election Petition is not an efficacious remedy in case of illegal acceptance of nomination paper. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Dalsing S/o Shamsing Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" reported in 2006 (3) Mh.L.J.592. So also further contends that when the error can be rectified then the petitioner may not be relegated to the alternate remedy of Election Petition. Moreover, the same would sub-serve and expedite the process of election. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Mayaraju Ghavghave Vs. 3 Returning Officer and another" reported in 2004(5) Bom.C.R. 146 and another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Anant Janardan Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" reported in AIR 2002 Bombay 87. 3. It is not disputed that the final list of contesting candidates has been published and as per the same the Respondent No.4 is unopposed. In view of Rule 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Election Rules, 1959, where the number of candidates duly nominated is less than the number of seats to be filled, the Returning Officer shall declare the candidates so nominated to be duly elected and in respect of the remaining seats or where there is no candidate duly nominated, in respect of all the seats, it shall be deemed to be that the election has not resulted in the return of the required number of qualified persons willing to take office and where the number of candidates duly nominated is equal to the number of seats to be filled, the Returning Officer shall declare the candidates so nominated 4 to be duly elected without any votes being taken. 4. As the Respondent No.4 is the only candidate even as on the date when the final list of candidates is published, the Respondent No.4 shall be deemed to be declared to be elected. In light of that the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner referred supra would not be applicable. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file Election Petition, if he so desires. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.21.06.2011. asp/office/wp4338.11 5