1 wp7592 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7592 OF 2011 Balasaheb Anaba Khartode ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary of Co-operation, Mantralaya and others ...Respondents Mr.S.P.Kadam for the Petitioner Ms Neha Palshikar-Bhide, A.G.P for the respondent nos.1 to 3 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The election of the Managing Committee of the respondent-society is scheduled to be held on 2nd October 2011. The date of scrutiny of nomination papers was 3rd September 2011 and 5th September 2011 was the date fixed for publication of validly nominated candidates. 2 The challenge in this petition is to the communication issued by the Returning Officer by which an objection raised by the petitioner as well as by one Nanasaheb M. Khartode to the nomination of respondent no.5 was rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the said Nanasaheb filed an objection on the date of scrutiny pointing out that the 5th respondent had already three children. He pointed out that on 5th September 2 wp7592 2011 the petitioner himself submitted the copies of birth certificates showing that the 5th respondent was the mother of three children. He submitted that the birth certificates were not disputed and therefore, it was crystal clear that the 5th respondent had incurred disqualification. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. Admittedly, the petitioner did not raise any objection in writing on or before the date of scrutiny. The case made out in the petition is that on the date of scrutiny, the petitioner and others raised an objection regarding disqualification of 5th respondent. However, the objection was not considered as no proof was produced. Even according to the case of the petitioner, the birth certificates were produced on 5th September 2011 i.e the date on which list of validly nominated candidates was to be published. The objection of the petitioner is to the list of validly nominated candidates dated 5th September 2011. The other objector Nanasaheb did not produce the birth certificates, as noted by the Returning Officer in the impugned order dated 5th September 2011. As stated earlier, even the petitioner produced the birth certificates after the stage of scrutiny was over. 4 Therefore, at this stage, no interference can be made with the impugned order. The petitioner can always challenge the election in accordance with law and raise an objection that the 5th respondent stood disqualified. All contentions in that behalf are 3 wp7592 kept open. 5 Subject to what is observed above, petition is rejected. JUDGE