1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3579 OF 2010. Sundarrao S/o Sahebrao Kale and others ... Petitioners. Versus The Collector, Parbhani, (Authorised Officer of State Election Commission and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.M.V.Ghatge, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.K.Tambe, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 05.05.2010. PER COURT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the notification issued by the Respondents dated 2 4.2.2010 regarding the ward formation. 2. According to the petitioners, the petitioners are owners of houses bearing Nos.165 to 168, 174 and 175. A draft notification had been issued by the Respondents on 12.1.2010 and as per the draft notification the houses of the petitioners were shown in ward No.2. Since the petitioners were not agreed in in any manner by the ward formation, the petitioners did not object to the same. However, it appears that certain other residents who were aggrieved by the ward formation submitted objection on 18.1.2010. The aforesaid persons were owners of house Nos. 260 to 268. The Collector considered the objections and accordingly the notification came to be issued on 4.2.2010 and by virtue of the said notification, the houses of the petitioners were shown in ward No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that by virtue of Rule 5(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Number of Members, Divisions into Wards and Reservation of Seats) 3 Rules, 1966, the Respondents have acted beyond their powers in issuing the notification by which change is effected in the placement of the houses of the petitioners from ward No.2 to ward No.1. It is next urged before us that no hearing was afforded to the petitioners and since the final notification effects a change in the placement of the houses of the petitioners, the petitioners ought to have been afforded an opportunity of hearing. It is also urged that the Respondents have committed breach of Rule of geographical continuity in the formation of the wards. Mr.S.T.Shelke, learned counsel for the Respondents has urged before us that no opportunity of hearing is contemplated to persons who have not objected. According to the learned counsel for the Respondents, the change in the placement of the houses of the petitioners was necessitated on account of the decision in respect of the objections raised to the draft notification. It is also urged before us that the objections were considered and the authority competent in law has issued the notification which is the final notification. It is also 4 urged before us that the rule of geographical continuity is maintained as ward No.1 and ward No.2 are divided by a public road. 4. Rule 5(2) of the aforesaid Rules contemplates the procedure before issuance of a notification. It contemplates the issuance of a draft notification inviting objections from the General Public. It also contemplates that the Election Commissioner would consider the objections. All these procedure has been followed and the final notification has been issued by the competent authority that is the Collector. We thus, do not see any deviation in the issuance of the final notification vis-a-vis Rule 5(2). Since the petitioners had not submitted the objections the petitioners were not heard. The cascading effect of the decision of the objections obviously was that the houses of the petitioners came to be placed from ward No.1 to ward No.2. In that light of the matter, therefore, since the Rules do not contemplate any opportunity of hearing before issuance of a final notification, no breach thereof appears to have 5 been committed. The rule of geographical continuity which is rule 3 of the said Rules is required to be maintained by the authority as far as possible and as far as practicable. We have perused the map which has been annexed at Exh.C by the petitioners. Ward No.1 and ward No.2 appear to have been divided by a public road. The geographical continuity has been maintained in placement of the houses. In any event, there is no flagrant disregard which is required to be observed as far as practicable. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, according to us, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp357910