(1) WP. 6757.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6757 OF 2010 Gavlanbai w/o Gopinath Aade .. Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for the respondent-State Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the respondent no.2 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 28TH JULY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel. The petitioner was candidate who filed nomination from ward no.1 stating herself to be a candidate for the constituency reserved for the citizens-backward class woman. The nomination form has been rejected for the reason that there is no reservation for woman OBC category in ward no.1. (2) WP. 6757.2010 2. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an illiterate woman and her claim as member of backward class is supported by the documentary evidence and she wrote available class as woman only due to illiteracy. It is argued that when there was no reservation available for OBC woman category in ward no.1, the candidature for General OBC category, inclusive of men and women should have been considered and the Returning Officer has decided such claim only on hyper-technical ground. I find it difficult to countenance the argument at this juncture for the reason that there is, in fact, a constituency reserved for backward class woman which is ward no.2 from which the petitioner was not a candidate. It appears that she erroneously assumed such reservation available from ward no.1 which, in fact, was not available. 3. The rejection of the nomination paper cannot be therefore faulted with and the process of election may not be interferred with at this juncture. The (3) WP. 6757.2010 petitioner is at liberty to challenge the election, if so advised after the elections are over by filing regular Election Petition. All questions are kept open. Petition disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp