1 WP 1050.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1050 OF 2011 Dr. Sarjerao S/o Asaram Thombre & Ors. .... PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .... RESPONDENTS Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. H.A. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Msr. A.V.Gondhalekar, Asstt. Govt.Pleader for State. Mr. M.P.Tripathi, Advocate for Resp. No. 4. Mr. N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for Resp. No. 11. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 21/02/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners, who desire to participate in Senate elections of the University, filed nominations and their nominations were accepted. The petitioners’ grievance is about the acceptance of nominations of the respondents on the ground that Returning Officer committed several mistakes, including practically extending the date of scrutiny, keeping the 2 WP 1050.2011 nomination form for procuring some more evidence on behalf of candidates, etc. It is alleged that scrutiny was done by Returning Officer in closed room and petitioners were not permitted to attend the same. The petitioners submit that elections have to be held in free and fair manner. 3. Today learned counsel for respondent nos. 2,3 and 11have filed affidavit in reply. 4. Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for Returning Officer submits that under the provisions of Section 14 (8) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, Vice Chancellor passed an order. The relevant portion of this extensive order in respect of elections is in Rule 41 ( a ) and ( b ) : “ 41. (a) As soon as possible after the last day fixed for the nominations, at such time and place fixed by the Registrar and notified in the notice of election, the Registrar or any person or persons nominated by him shall scrutinize the nominations. The candidate or his agent duly authorized by him in writing in this behalf shall be entitled to be present at such scrutiny. 3 WP 1050.2011 (b) In the case of dispute or doubt regarding the validity or otherwise of a nomination paper, the decision of the Vice- Chancellor shall be final and binding ”. 5. The learned counsel submits that petitioners have efficacious remedy in light of Rule 41 (b) to approach Vice Chancellor, which decision would be final. The learned counsel further submits that Returning Officer is also the Registrar. It is submitted that no person had filed nomination from Foster Development institution. The learned counsel submits that the allegations of close door scrutiny is wrong and falsely made. The petitioners never requested for attending scrutiny of papers. The petitioners’ nominations were accepted. Therefore, the petition be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for University adopted the arguments of Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned counsel for Returning Officer. 7. Considering the fact that election process has already commenced and the election is due on 27/2/2011 and more particularly in view of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor, which is placed before us, we find that petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy available under the provisions of Rule 41 (a) and (b). 4 WP 1050.2011 8. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners submits that petition would be filed tomorrow itself before the Vice Chancellor in respect of petitioners. The learned counsel for University submits that in case such petition is filed, Vice Chancellor would deal with the matter and would take decision before the date of polling. 9. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. We have not expressed any opinion on the issues raised before us. The learned counsel for University would communicate this order. The parties to the petition to act upon ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by Court Shirastedar. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] knp/WP 1050.2011