{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15837 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10326 OF 2010 Sonaji s/o Sampatrao Tere & others Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.R.M.Deshmukh, advocate for applicants. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 22 nd November, 2010 PER COURT: Civil Application is allowed. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp1032610 {2} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10326 OF 2010 Sonaji s/o Sampatrao Tere & others Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.R.M.Deshmukh, advocate for petitioners Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 22 nd November, 2010 PER COURT: 1 Petition is taken on board for hearing. 2 Petitioner, though, had initially challenged the result of the election dated 25.10.2010 from Ward No.1, in view of the subsequent development i.e. direction by this Court to the Returning Officer to decide the the application, which application has been rejected by the Returning Officer, has also challenged the decision of the Returning Officer rejecting the application of the petitioner. 3 The question, as to whether recounting was necessary or not and as to whether the Returning Officer has correctly {3} rejected the application or not, can only be decided after leading evidence by the parties. We are afraid, such exercise would not be available in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In any event, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy available in law by way of filing an Election Petition. 4 Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy available in law. R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp1032610