1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2912 OF 2010 Kedarnath s/o Motilal Loya, age: 60 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o Plot No.5, Behind Guru Nanak Petrol Pump, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. Petitioner Versus 1 The Under Secretary, State Election Commission, Maharashtra. 2 The Returning Officer, Division No.F, Municipal Corporation, Vyayam Shala, Aurangabad. 3 Prashant s/o Subhash Desarda, age: 34 years, Occ: Agri. & Business, R/o Plot No.77, Surananagar, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. Respondents Mr.A.R.Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate with Mr.Devdatta Palodkar, advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 06th April, 2010. P.C.: 1 An order in respect of allotment of symbol by the Returning Officer during continuance of process of election is subject matter of 2 challenge in this petition. 2 It is informed that all the stages prescribed in the programme of election are completed except polling, which is scheduled to be held on 11 th April, 2010. 3 Petitioner has made a grievance that Respondent No.3 had presented 3 separate nomination papers. One nomination paper presented by him, which contains a declaration that he is set up by a political party, is already turned down by the Returning Officer, whereas, other two nomination papers, those were presented by Respondent No.3 – contesting candidate, are held to be valid. Respondent No.3 made request for allotment of a symbol from amongst the free symbol category while tendering nomination papers those were held to be valid. However, grievance is made by petitioner that the Returning Officer, in spite of rejection of nomination paper presented by Respondent No.3, in his capacity as a candidate set up by political party, proceeded to allot him symbol prescribed for a candidate belonging to Bhartiya Janata Party. According to petitioner, it is not permissible for the Returning Officer to allot said symbol to such a candidate who has presented nomination paper as an independent candidate. According to learned Counsel for petitioner, Respondent No.3 cannot be considered as a candidate set up by political party in view of Rule 9(1) of the Maharashtra Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 2009. 4 Learned Counsel appearing for State Election Commission contends that there was no other candidate set up by the political party and as the nomination paper of Respondent No.3, presented by him, although as an independent candidate is accepted, said respondent can be considered 3 as a candidate set up by political party as he had produced communication received from the said political party in prescribed format “A” “B”. 5 The controversy in respect of allotment of symbol need not be gone into at this stage in view of the Constitutional bar contained in Article 243-ZG (b). It would be open for the petitioner to raise grievance, if any, in a properly presented election petition, if occasion arises. In exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. 6 Petition stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp291210