ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4418 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4418 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4418 OF 2008 Zulabai Bhairu Chavan ...Petitioner Vs. Sou.Anusaya Chumne Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.I.M.Khairdi for the Petitioner. Mr.Sameer Kumbhakoni for Respondent Nos.1 to 6. Mr.R.S.Alange for Respondent No.7. Mr.Sameer Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.8 and 9. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 7th August, 2008 : 7th August, 2008 : 7th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petition pertains to the elections of Sarpanch of village Panchayat Ghodatanda, Tq.South Solapur, Dist.Solapur. It is admitted that the post of Sarpanch of village Ghodatanda is reserved for the women belonging to the OBC category. The Petitioner and Respondent No.1 both contested the election. The nomination of Respondent No.1 was rejected and therefore, the Petitioner was declared elected unopposed. The Respondent No.1 filed Dispute under ( 2 ) Section 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act-1958 before the Collector. The Collector set aside the election to the post of Sarpanch. The Collector’s order is confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune which is being impugned in this Petition. 3. The nomination paper of Respondent No.1 was rejected on the ground that she does not belonging to the OBC category. Both the lower authorities below found that the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.1 belongs to the same caste i.e. Laman V.J.-7 and this caste is included in the OBC category. In view of this finding, the lower authority concluded that the Respondent No.1’s nomination is wrongly rejected and consequently, set aside the Petitioners election. I do not find any illegality or error in the approach adopted by the lower authority. 4. Mr.Khairdi the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the nomination form of Respondent No.1 was not filled up completely and there are blanks in this nomination form. He also submits that the Respondent No.1 even did not sign the nomination and therefore, order rejecting the nomination papers could not have been faulted. ( 3 ) 5. In my considered view, this submission is devoid of any merits since the only reason given by the returning officer rejecting the respondent No.1 nomination was that she does not belong to O.B.C. category. The petitioner now cannot be allowed to agitate any new ground to support the rejection of nomination of Respondent No.1. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I find no merits in the Petition and accordingly same is dismissed. ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)