1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.640 OF 2008 Bhushan Kashinath Sarang. ..Petitioner. V/s. Prem Manalal Bramhane & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.641 OF 2008 Bhushan Kashinath Sarang. ..Petitioner. V/s. Renu Dayash Prabhukhanolkar & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Raja Ghadge for Petitioner. Mrs.N.V.Sanglikar for Respondent no.1. Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 and 5. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 19, 2008. DATE : MARCH 19, 2008. DATE : MARCH 19, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Counsel for the Petitioner(s) stoutly relied on unreported decision of the Division Bench of our High Court dated 7th December, 1982 in Writ Petition Nos. 2614/1982, 2615/1982, 2616/1982 and 2617/1982 to contend that non-joinder of the Petitioner(s) in Appeal preferred by the private Respondent was fatal and the Appeal ought to have been dismissed at the 2 threshold on that count without going into merits of the claim of the private Respondent/Appellant before the lower Authority. 3. Counsel for the private Respondent/- Appellant before the Appellate Authority however, has placed reliance on the decision of the Single Judge of our High Court in the case of Vinodchandra H.Doshi Vinodchandra H.Doshi Vinodchandra H.Doshi & Anr.V/s. Echjay Forgings Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. & Anr.V/s. Echjay Forgings Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. & Anr.V/s. Echjay Forgings Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2002(4) Bom.C.R. 438 reported in 2002(4) Bom.C.R. 438 reported in 2002(4) Bom.C.R. 438 to contend that besides the decision pressed into service on behalf of the Petitioners, the Single Judge had occasion to consider another decision of the Division Bench and proceeded to hold that the consistent view of this Court has been to decline to entertain Writ Petition against the order of acceptance of nomination papers. The observations of the Division Bench in the unreported case are in relation to the matter where Returning Officer had rejected the nomination of the Petitioner therein. 4. I am in agreement with the submission of the Respondent that the Order passed by the Appellate Authority was in continuation of the election process in which the impugned Order was passed by the Returning Officer. In other words, order of the 3 Appellate Authority is one of acceptance of the nomination of the private Respondent. If so, the exposition in the case of Vinod Chandra(supra) Vinod Chandra(supra) Vinod Chandra(supra) will apply with full force to the present case, for which reason, it will have to be observed that the present Writ Petition does not warrant interference, which is directed against the Order of acceptance of nomination paper of the private respondent. 5. All questions in relation to proper or improper of acceptance of the nomination of the Respondent will have to be kept open, to be decided in appropriate proceedings, if and when the Petitioner or any other person competent challenges the election of the private Respondent on that count. 6. At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioners submits that he was also relying on other two unreported Judgments, which are appended to the Petition. In my opinion, the appropriate Order, to be passed in such a situation is to keep all issues regarding proper or improper acceptance of the nomination paper of the Respondent open to be decided in the proceedings to be resorted to by way of election dispute. 4 7. Petitions disposed off on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)