1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4112 of 2010 Vinod Rambhau Patil ..vs..The Returning officer and anr. 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. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2010. Advocate Chopde, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the agreement of lease in favour of the petitioner by Gram panchayat has come to an end on 1/4/2010. There is no subsisting agreement thereafter, the nomination paper of the petitioner could not have been rejected. Advocate Ravi Pande for respondent no.2 and Mr.Kankale, learned AGP for respondent no.1, states that though agreement has expired, the possession continues with the petitioner and hence the rejection of nomination paper cannot be interfered with. The facts clearly show that the petitioner claims to be continuing in possession of Gram panchayat property without any subsisting agreement. The object with which the disqualification is provided for therefore is not prima facie diluted here. In view of this position, I am not inclined to interfere with the writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is rejected. No costs. JUDGE chute