1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4113 of 2010 AND C.A.NO.2341 OF 2010. Sau.Malta Madhukar Kuthe ..vs..The Returning Officer, Chandrapur and anr. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.S.Chopde, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.Kankale, AGP for resp.no.1. Mr.Bhandarkar Adv. for resp.no.2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2010. By placing reliance upon Apex court judgment reported at AIR 1966 SC 1339 (Gulam Yasin Khan ..vs.. Sahebrao Yeshwantrao Walaskar and ors.) and Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1957 MP 88 (Tejilal ..vs.. State), Advocate Chopade argues that merely because son of the petitioner has got a fishing contract, the nomination paper of the petitioner could not have been rejected. He has invited attention to averements made in the Civil Application to show that the petitioner-mother and her son are residing in separate houses. He has also invited attention to assertion that the petitioner and her son are not the members of the Hindu joint family. Advocate Bhandarkar, learned counsel for 2 respondent no.2 and learned AGP for respondent no.1 are disputing this position. Advocate Bhandarkar is seeking time to place on record certain documents along with affidavit to show that the petitioner and her son are staying together. Learned AGP states that after verification respondent no.1-Returning Office has passed appropriate order. Judgment of Hon’ble Apex court particularly its paragraph 5 shows that the candidate whose nomination paper was rejected and his three sons were living in same house but their mess was separate. Hence, employment of such separate sons with Municipal Council was found not sufficient to reject the nomination paper. Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court shows that there, there was a question of fact in relation to father having interest in contract with Committee. The writ petition seeking quo warranto was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of the lease of one stall in the name of said father. The learned Single Judge held that the respondent before him had an interest in the said contract. The Division Bench has found that a member of Hindu joint family is entitled to earn separately and hence only on the ground that father had a lease in his favour, interest of candidate could not have been construed. Thus, both decisions after appreciating fact take a particular view. In fact, before me, efforts are made to show 3 that son and mother (petitioner) are living in separate houses and those house numbers are disclosed to be house nos. 325 and 327. Perusal of nomination paper as filed does not disclose these house numbers. The nomination paper discloses only ownership of plot no.110. Thus, a disputed question arises in the present circumstances. I am not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the writ jurisdiction. Liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings as per law. Present writ petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE chute