{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9796 OF 2010 Shaikh Sardar s/o Shaikh Babubhai Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & another Respondents Mr. S.S.Tope, advocate for petitioner Mr. N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P for respondent no.1 & 2. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondents No.3. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 15 th October, 2010 PER COURT: 1 The nomination paper tendered by the petitioner with a view to contest election to the seat of member of village panchayat from Ward No.1 has been turned down on the ground that said seat is earmarked for women belonging to Other Backward Class category. Petitioner is a male candidate and does not fulfill the requirement noted in the notification. Obviously, the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the nomination paper tendered by petitioner. 2 It is the contention of the petitioner that the notification issued by the Collector under Rule 5(1) is not in accordance with decision taken in the meeting. It is stated that it was resolved to earmark the reservation in respect of some other {2} ward and originally it was not provided for Ward No.1. Petitioner also raises a dispute as regards providing for reservation of women members in the election. 3 The objections raised by the petitioner are liable to be dealt with in a properly presented election petition. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the error, which is brought to the notice, cannot be corrected without interfering in the election process, which is not permissible in view of constitutional bar. Petition is devoid of substance. 4 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp979610