(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7846 OF 2010 Rajendra s/o. Girdhar Jadhav, Age : 31 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Waregaon, Taluka : Phulambri, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The State Election Commissioner, New Administrative Building, In front of Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai. 3. The Collector, Collector Office, Aurangabad. 4. Returning Officer, Gram Panchayat Election (Waregaon), Tahsil Office, Phulambri, Taluka : Phulambri, District : Aurangabad. 5. Kakasaheb s/o. Kautikrao Jadhav, Age : 24 years, Occupation : Agriculture. (2) 6. Dinkar s/o. Asaram Jadhav, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 7. Pandit s/o. Uttamrao Jadhav, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 8. Swapnil s/o. Sheshrao Jadhav, Age : 22 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 9. Bapusaheb s/o. Rakhmaji Jadhav, Age : 28 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 10.Sow. Kumabai w/o. Dinkar Jadhav, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Household. 11.Sow. Mandabai w/o. Shivaji Jadhav, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Household. 12.Sow. Savita w/o. Mansukh Jadhav, Age : 28 years, Occupation : Household. Nos.5 to 12 All R/o. Waregaon, Taluka : Phulambri, District : Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (3) Mr. S.D. Hiwrekar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 and 3. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for respondent nos. 6, 7 and 11. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. In view of the alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, by filing election petition under Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, we are not inclined to entertain the petition in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks liberty to file an election petition. 3. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, it is (4) made clear that since we have dismissed this petition only on the ground that the alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, the petitioner would always be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as would be available in law. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/7846wp