1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7925 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders Mr.P.B.Patil, counsel for petitioner. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil,AGP for State Mr.S.T.Shelke,counsel for R.2. .... CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 1/09/2010 1] The nomination paper tendered by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he has subsisting interest in the contract awarded by village panchayat. As such in view of provisions of 41(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, petitioner has incurred disqualification and cannot be permitted to contest elections to village panchayat. It transpires from perusal of the order that there is overwriting in the order recorded by Returning Officer. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order has been substituted by Returning Officer 2 subsequently. However, there exists a dispute in respect of petitioner’s having subsisting contract with the village panchayat. Petition raises disputed questions of fact, as such no interference is permissible at this stage. Petitioner may avail of the alternate remedy available to him under law. Petition stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE,J.) umg/wp-7925-10