1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9753 OF 2010 Nagorao s/o Mariba Jadhav & another .. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, AGP for the State. Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for respondent no. 4. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 19 th OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1 The order of rejection of nomination papers issued by the Returning Officer is subjected to challenge in this petition. 2 Petitioners herein tendered their nomination papers with a view to contest the election to a seat of member of Village Panchayat Talni on 8-10-2010. Objection was raised before the Returning Officer for acceptance of the nomination papers on the ground that both the 2 petitioners are defaulters within meaning of section 14(1)(h) r/w explanation 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, and as such the nomination papers tendered by the petitioners need to be rejected. It is contended by the petitioners that although the bills were not tendered, the petitioners as a matter of precaution tendered the amount towards taxes with the Village Panchayat and secured no dues certificate on 8-10-2010. It is thus contended by the petitioners that there was no notice served in respect of dues payable by them towards tax and as such they cannot be considered to have incurred disqualification within meaning of provisions of the Act. 3 Contentions raised by the petitioners have been controverted by the respondents contending that infact notice was issued to the petitioners in respect of balance of tax payable by them with the Village Panchayat and, after service of notice they failed to deposit the amount with the Village Panchayat within three months. It is also further contended that in view of provisions of section 14(1)(h) of the Act, the petitioners were expected to clear off the dues prior to the stage of acceptance of nomination paper. The petitioners, however, have deposited the dues on 8-10-2010, the day on which they presented the nomination papers. In this view of the matter, the nomination papers tendered by the petitioners were rightly turned down. 3 Considering the disputed nature of facts raised in the petition, it is not appropriate to cause interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners shall have liberty to avail of the alternate remedy provided under the Act, if they desire. Petition stands disposed of. 4 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp9753.10.odt