1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1236 OF 2010 Balaji Ganpatrao Harale ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.B. Ghatol Patil, advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. L.H. Kawale h/f Mr. K. J. Suryawanshi, advocate for R. No.4 ..... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 23RD FEBRUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel for the parties. 2 By this petition, in essence the petitioner is questioning the order passed by the Returning Officer of accepting the nomination forms of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. In our opinion, the petitioner has alternative remedy by way of Election Dispute. The counsel for the petitioner however, submits that when the record indicates that respondent Nos. 2 5 and 6 are ineligible persons to contest the elections, the petitioner need not be driven to file Election Dispute and this Court is obliged to consider the matter on its own merits and issue appropriate orders, as may be required. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decisions in the case of Babaji Kondaji Garad and Ors. Vs. Nashik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. reported in AIR 1984 SC 192, Pundlik Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2005 (4) Mh.L.J. 254 (SC) and the decision of our High Court in the case of Dalsing Shamsing Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2006 (3) Mh.L.J. 592 and lastly on Bhaulal Rajdhar Sonavane Vs. Returning Officer and Ors. reported in 1994 (2) Mh.L.J. 1439. 3 In our opinion, all these decisions will be of no avail to the petitioner. We would dispose of this petition in the light of exposition of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 509. Counsel for the petitioner was at pains to persuade us that the decision in the case of Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (supra) will have no application to the fact situation of the present case and should be distinguished as has been done by the Apex Court in Pundlik's case (supra). This argument does not commend to us. 3 4 In our opinion, the remedy of Election Dispute is available to the petitioner to question the wrongful acceptance of nomination of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, for which reason interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not warranted. It will be open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy of Election Dispute, if so advised. 5 Petition disposed of on the above terms. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) rlj/