1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6508 OF 2010 Sau Sunita Chandrakant Thakar and another ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.U.B.Nighot for the petitioners Mr.P.M.Gore for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.S.S.Bhende for respondent no.3 Mr.N.P.Deshpande for respondent nos.4 and 5 Mr.S.B.Shetye for respondent no.6 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 23, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The challenge in this writ petition is to the declaration of result of the election of the village panchayat. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the alleged declaration of result which is at Exhibit-C to the petition. He pointed out that on 31 st July 2010, the Returning Officer declared that the petitioners are elected. He relied upon the document at page 20 which is a publication of result of the election as per the rule 37 of of Village Panchayat Rules. He pointed out that the impugned declaration is at Exhibit-F. He pointed out that the names of the petitioners do not appear therein as elected candidates in the declaration made on 31 st July 2010 though the petitioners were declared elected by the Returning Officer. 2 3 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that modification made in the result of the election is contrary to the various rules including rules 35 and 37 of the Village Panchayat Election Rules . He submitted that no hearing was given to the petitioners. 4 The Returning Officer has filed an affidavit. It is contended in the affidavit that necessary correction was carried out in exercise of powers conferred by rule 37 of the said Rules. He stated that result was wrongly declared by him which was not signed by the Collector. In fact, he has stated that a show cause notice was issued to him. There is a separate affidavit filed by the Tahsildar reiterating the same factual position. 5 In substance, the challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of the result of the election. Remedy under section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 is available to the petitioners. All contentions regarding illegality raised by the petitioners will have to be considered in election dispute in accordance with section 15 of the said Act of 1958. In view of the availability of said remedy, no case for interference is made out in writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is accordingly rejected. JUDGE