1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1508 OF 2010 Sou. Manisha Sanjay Waskar ...Petitioner Vs. Anil @ Bajirao Balaso Dhavan (Panari) & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Amit Borkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R.M. Patne, A.G.P for Respondent Nos.2 & 5. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan i/by Mr.Chetan Patil for Res.No.1. ­­­ CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 2ND MARCH, 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This writ petition has challenged the judgment and order of the learned District Judge, Kolhapur dated 23rd February 2010 passing directions for production of ballet boxes in respect of the election of the member of the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur. The essential challenge is on the ground of 2 disqualification relating to the age of the candidate being less than 21 years. The Petitioner has also set out the number of votes received by various candidates and prayed for setting aside the election and declaring him as the successful candidate. 3. It is the contention of the Petitioner that under Section 27(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act ( the Act) the latter part of the prayer cannot be granted and that even if the Petitioner is declared disqualified a fresh election will have to be held. It is also the Petitioner’s contention that under Section 27(5) (b) of the Act only if there is a dispute relating to illegality in the counting of votes the scrutiny and computation of the votes would be required to be made by the Court. The Petitioner contends that there is no dispute reflected in the Election Petition relating to the illegality in the counting of votes and hence an order passed after the entire evidence was led and arguments heard for production of ballet boxes is completely without jurisdiction. 4. The Court can pass such orders and directions during the pendency of the suit/petition as may be required. The effect of those orders may ultimately not be relied upon or used by the Court in the final judgment. It is only the final judgment which can be challenged by the parties against whom the judgment is pronounced. 5. It would be for the Petitioner to challenge the entire of the judgment relating to her age as also relating to the scrutiny and computation of the votes if any such order and judgment is passed. Whilst the trial is pending 3 and for the direction that is passed, no jurisdictional error is seen. It is only clarified that the Respondent No.1 contends that there are no ballet boxes in this case which can be produced because there was an electronic voting and the entire data has been erazed from the electronic voting machines by and upon subsequent elections which have taken place after 12th March 2007. However the record of the election which is maintained is available and has been submitted to the learned Judge. 6. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged accordingly. 7. No order as to costs. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)