1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4334 OF 2010 Khan Saleem s/o Sharif Khan & anr. ..PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr A.P. Piratwad, Advocate for the petitioners; Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent no.2; Mr Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 20th July, 2010 PER COURT : This is a frivolous petition at the instance of the petitioners who are the candidates who were defeated in the last elections of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. The petitioners have challenged the election of the entire body on the ground that the electoral roll which was prepared was not prepared as per the Assembly polls, which is the mandate of section 7-A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. It is further stated that some of the voters whose names appeared in the electoral rolls of the Assembly elections are not included in the list which is prepared in respect of the present elections which are in dispute. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in K. Venkatachalam vs. A. Swamickan & 2 anr., AIR 1999 S.C. 1723. In the reported judgment the Supreme Court set aside the election on the ground that the appellant was not an elector in the electoral rolls for the Assembly constituency for general elections and he had filed his nomination on affidavit impersonating himself for another person of same name in the electoral roll and he lacked the basic qualification under clause (c) of Article 173 of the Constitution of India read with section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, which mandated that a person to be elected from an Assembly constituency has to be elector of that constituency. In that light of the matter, therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the election. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, in our opinion, is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 3. Reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioners on another unreported judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Mohammed Shafi s/o Mohd. Yusuf vs. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad (W.P.No.1857 of 1991), to urge before us that challenge to the electoral roll is not available in an election petition. 4. The Constitutional mandate is that the election of a returned candidate can be set aside only by way of an election petition. Statutory remedy for setting aside of election has been provided. In such circumstances, relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in P. Manjula vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & ors., (2007) 15 S.C.C. 766, we find that there is no merit in the present petition and the present petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/wp4334.10