1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7698 OF 2010 Dnyaneshwar s/o Shamrao Sonwane .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. R.L. Kute, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.N. Jadhav, AGP for the State. Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for respondent no. 3. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25 th AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1 One of the nomination papers out of two tendered by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Returning Officer in view of order passed on 23-8-2010. Petitioner presented two nomination papers with a view to contest election to the seat of member of village panchayat. The first nomination paper which was taken up for scrutiny was presented for contesting election from general category whereas the second nomination paper was presented with a view to contest the election from reserved category. The first nomination paper presented by the petitioner was 2 accepted by the Returning Officer whereas the second nomination paper which was presented with a view to contest the election from reserved category has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not exercised his option in respect of contesting election from either of the categories. 2 It is contended by the petitioner that he has orally informed the Returning Officer. The petition raises disputed question of fact. The Returning Officer in his order has specifically observed that the petitioner has failed to exercise his option and as such his second nomination paper has been rejected. In this factual background, no interference is permissible in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. petition is devoid of merit hence stands rejected. 3 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb/wp7698.10.odt