1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2648 OF 2010 Fuzail Hameed Khan s/o Gulam Ali Khan ..PETITIONER VERSUS Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr J.R. Shaikh,Advocate for the petitioner; Mr R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent no.3; Mr S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents no.2 & 4. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 26th March, 2010 PER COURT : This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that the name of the petitioner in the nomination paper does not tally with his name in the voters list. 2. The name of the petitioner as per the nomination paper is "Fuzail Hamidkhan s/o Gulam Ali Khan Abdul Hamidkhan", while his name as it appears in the voters list at sr.no.4729 is "Gulam Hamid Gulam Ali s/o Gulam Gulam Ali". The number of the identity card issued by the 2 Election Commission of India, which is stated in the voters list is MT/33/193/0251266. The xerox copy of the identity card which has been annexed by the petitioner shows the number as MT/33/193/1242266. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Shri Shaikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Talib s/o Mohd. Sadique (Dr) vs. Dr. A.S. Kuchewar, 2007 (4) Mh.L.J. 557. In the said judgment the electoral roll showed the name of the candidate as "Dr. Mohammad Talib Mohd. Sadique", while in the nomination form the name which was mentioned was "Mohd. Talib Mohd. Sadique". The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the word "Mohd." being the abbreviation of the name "Mohammad" there was no dispute about the identity of the person, defect was not of a substantial nature so as to warrant rejection of nomination paper. In the facts of the present case the aforesaid ratio does not apply. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Brij Mohan vs. Sat Pal, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 847. In the said judgment the Supreme Court noted that the part number of the voters list was wrongly given in the nomination paper of the candidates and the Supreme Court, therefore, held that the rejection of the nomination paper was not improper. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment in the facts of the present case is also not applicable. 5. Shri Shaikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner further urged before us that the nomination of the petitioner in respect of another ward has been accepted by the Returning Officer. Mere acceptance of the said nomination from another ward cannot be a ground for urging before us that the defect is not of a substantial nature. In the present case since the name in the nomination paper substantially differs with the name in the voters list, according to us the defect is of a substantial nature and 3 this petition, therefore, cannot be entertained. Moreover, the election programme has already been declared and the voting is scheduled on 11th April, 2010. In that light of the matter, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P. V. HARDAS, J.) amj/wp2648.10