1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3881 OF 2010 (Prayagbai D. Sarkate vs. The District Collector, Buldana & Ors.) 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. AUGUST 18, 2010. Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sonare, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3. Perused the reply filed by the learned AGP. The petitioner contends that immediately after learning about rejection of her nomination paper, she rushed to the Returning Officer and requested him to obtain her signatures. Shri Patil, learned counsel contends that missing signatures were necessarily to be obtained by the Returning Officer only. The learned AGP has contended that the request to obtain signatures (thumb impression) was made at about 5.00 P.M. in the evening after the form was already rejected. He invites attention to instructions issued by the State Election Commission in this respect and has also produced original nomination paper for perusal of this Court. The perusal of original nomination paper shows that declaration mentioned at page No. 5 therein about number of children though filled in, has 2 not been signed by the petitioner. Form No. 2 appended to nomination paper is again filled in but has not been signed after clause (4) or then after verification. Thus, total three signatures are missing. The contention that this was required to be done before the Returning Officer cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the petitioner was not present before the Returning Officer for said purpose. Her application as moved before the Returning Officer on 09.08.2010 states that her thumb impression was to be obtained by the Returning Officer and inadvertently it was not obtained. Perusal of paras 6 & 7 in writ petition shows that the petitioner was not present for making any signatures at the time of scrutiny. She learnt about rejection in the evening in the field and then rushed to the office of Returning Officer. Thus reasons put forth for not making signatures cannot be accepted at this stage without further corroboration as disputed questions arise, which cannot be decided by this Court. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the rejection of her nomination in Election Petition after the Elections are over. With that liberty, writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.