1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6474 OF 2010 Vidya w/o Uttamrao Rode Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.M.P.Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.S.J.Salunke, advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 26 th July, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The petition itself shows that three children were born to the petitioner, but, according to the petitioner, one of them had died and, therefore, at the relevant time, there were only two living children and hence she cannot be discarded from the process of election. The petitioner alleges that her nomination is wrongly rejected on assumption that three children were born and were living at the relevant time. 3 Ordinarily, in view of the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade Vs. Returning Officer, Akot & another, reported in 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 359, such petition is not maintainable. It is true 2 that this Court has intervened only in exceptional cases when it is patently clear that rejection of the writ petition is likely to cause prejudice to the petitioner and entire process of election is likely to be upsetted subsequently by considering the election petition and allowing the same on the same ground. 4 At the present stage, the record does not show that the petitioner made a statement in the declaration that two children were alive and one had died and, therefore, she was eligible nor any particular document was produced in support of said contention. There appears one application dated 17.07.2010 presented by the group leader of the group of petitioner and other candidates (page-27). The said application also does not show that one of the child of the petitioner had died. It is vaguely stated that there was no certificate of competent officer regarding the third child born to the petitioner. 5 Considering the disputed questions of fact involved and in view of the limited scope available under Article 227 of the Constitution, no interference is called for. The issue is kept open. The petitioner will be at liberty to agitate all the questions in regular election petition, if so filed. 6 Writ Petition stands dismissed. (V.R. KINGAONKAR) JUDGE ******* adb/wp647410