1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4090 of 2010. Vijaya Bhauraoji Patil ..vs.. The Returning Officer and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.A.S.Kilor, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.Kankale, AGP for resp.no.1 and 2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2010. 1. Heard. 2. Advocate Kilor has made a oral request to permit him to delete respondent no.3. He points out that the pursis St.No.9293 of 2010 is already on record. In the circumstances, respondent no.3 is allowed to be deleted at the risk of the petitioner. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith. 3. Nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that his father has not paid the property tax. 4. Advocate Kilor states that section 14(1)(4) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 is attracted only when it is shown that a demand for the property tax was duly served on a person. According to him, here no notice is served upon father of the petitioner at any point 2 of time. He relies upon a certificate dated 23/8/2010 issued by the Gram Panchayat to substantiate this position. He further points out that as per Rule 11 of the Elections Rules, the Returning Officer has to conduct prima facie enquiry and here without any such enquiry the assertion in the objections raised by the deleted respondent no.3 have been accepted. Learned AGP has pointed that objection was raised by respondent no.3 and as the Returning Officer was satisfied that property tax was not paid, the nomination paper has been rejected. Before me the question is whether – if taxes are not paid, nomination paper of the petitioner could have been rejected. The petitioner states that property tax for the year 2008-2009 till date has not been demanded from father of the petitioner. He is relying upon certificate issued by Gram Panchayat dated 23/8/2010 for said purpose. The said certificate mentions application moved by petitioner on 23/8/2010, the petitioner is not residing with his father and that as per Gram Panchayat record, no arrears were demanded at any point of time. Thereafter last clause 5 of this communication states that during relevant period the signatory certifying the facts was not Secretary and hence he could not ascertain some facts. The facts which he could not ascertain are not very clear. Upon questioning, learned counsel stated that said clause no.5 relates to information demanded under Right to 3 Information Act. Prima facie, I am not in position to connect communication dated 23/8/2010 with any application under Right to Information Act. The petition as filed does not attempt to connect it any such application. I, therefore, find that a disputed question of facts arise. The petitioner has already deleted respondent no.3, who has raised relevant objection. In this background, I am not in position to interfere in the election process. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. All issues are kept open for adjudication in election petition, if any, filed by the petitioner. JUDGE chute