1 W.P.No.9349/11. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9349 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.S.S.Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mukul Kulkarni, advocate for the Respondent No.4. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt.Pleader for the State. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 02.12.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The nomination paper of the petitioner was initially accepted by the Returning Officer. In an appeal before the District Court, the District Court allowed the appeal and rejected the nomination paper on the ground that the present petitioner has interest in the contract with the Municipal Council. 3. Mr.S.S.Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in the year 2009 had given on lease the JCB machine. Now the said contract does not subsist. As the contract does not subsist the bar U/s 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships 2 W.P.No.9349/11. Act, does not arise. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner had also given letter to the Municipal Council that he is not accepting the cheque and the letter was also given that he would not accept the cheque and no cheque shall be issued to him in his name. In such circumstances, there was no impediment for the petitioner to contest the election. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 supports the order and submits that the bar of Section 16(1)(i) and 16 (3A) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, is clearly attracted. Even the letter which has been given says that after the elections are over, the petitioner would decide about the amount. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner had given JCB machine on lease to the Municipal Council. The payment of the same is not yet received. The transaction is not yet complete. The petitioner in his letter also has stated that after the elections are over then he would decide about the payment of the amount. This shows that the accounts are not yet settled between the parties and the petitioner has interest in the contract which is with the Municipal Council. 5. In view of the above, no error is committed by the District Court in passing the impugned order. The Writ Petition as such is 3 W.P.No.9349/11. dismissed. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.02.12.2011. asp/office/wp9349.11 4 W.P.No.9349/11.