1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3507/2010. Sau. Kondabai Kashiram Kamble -: VERSUS :- The Returning Officer for village Panchayat and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 02, 2010. Heard Shri F.T. Mirza, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Gharote, learned Counsel for Respondent no.2 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Nomination paper of petitioner has been rejected holding her to be disqualified for non payment of property tax. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is no demand bill was served upon petitioner at any point of time in the year 2010-11 and the petitioner has by way of abundant precaution paid that tax on 26.07.2010. Learned A.G.P. has during hearing produced relevant papers considered by the Returning Officer. The receipts dated 26.07.2010 for house no.70 and 69 are for amount of Rs. 485/- and Rs.290/- respectively. The demand notice produced by the learned AGP along with the said 2 record contending that those notices were served on petitioner in relation to those houses are dated 20.10.2009 and for the year 2009-10. The report given by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat reveals that name of her husband appears below her and in it, it is mentioned that amount of Rs. 1100/- has been paid on 26.07.2010. The year for which that amount was in arrears is not mentioned. The bill for said house is having no.69 for the year 2009-10. The amount of Rs. 1100/- is also shown to be including amount of Rs. 810/- towards water taxes and that amount is still not paid. The period for which water tax is in arrears and recoverable from her husband is not stipulated. In this situation, it appears that prima facie water tax for the period of 2009-10 also might not have been paid. However, there are some disputed questions involved and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore rejected. No costs. However, petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for ventilation of his grievances before appropriate forum. JUDGE Rgd.