1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6534 OF 2010 Ashok s/o Dagadu Pawar and ors. ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr.E.P.Sawant, Advocate holding for Mr.M.P.Kale and Mr.A.A.Khande, Advocates for petitioners Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondents 2 to 5 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 30th July 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioners take exception to the notification published under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act in respect of the formation of the wards. It appears that the draft notification came to be published inviting objections. According to the petitioners the figures of the population in that particular ward which was denoted in the draft notification were incorrect. It appears that the petitioners had taken objection to that effect. The respondents contend that the petitioners were not present at the time of hearing of their objections and the authorities at the time of hearing other residents have issued notification under Section 5(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 2 2. Mr.Sawant, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the formation of the wards is wholly inequitable as population of Ward No.5 is 909 while the population of the other wards is in the region of 1300 to 1800. It is urged before us that the formation of the ward is to be as far as possible equitable in respect of the population of each ward so that there is no disparity in the population of each ward. 3. Mr.Shelke, learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 states that after hearing the objections of the other residents of the village, the formation of the wards has been altered and as far as possible, it has been tried to ensure that the population ratio in respect of each ward is maintained. The learned Counsel for the respondents admits that there is a slight disparity in respect of the population ratio. 4. Since the election programme has already commenced and the date for submission of the nomination papers is 2nd August 2010, according to us, interference at this stage is likely to affect the outcome of the elections. The election programme has already commenced and in such circumstances, according to us no case for interference is made out and this petition is, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/6534.10wp)