1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1647 of 2010 Sarika Dilip Kadam ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. S.P.Thorat for the petitioner. Mr. S.N.Patil, AGP for respondents 1-4. Mr. S.B. Shetye, advocate for respondent no.5. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- April 09, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance in this Petition is about inclusion of stated House Nos. in Ward No. 2 instead of Ward No.3. According to the Petitioner, the said houses were always in Ward No.3 and even the Tehsildar had opined that they should continue in Ward No.3. The argument clearly overlooks the reason stated by the Collector in his order dated 30th January, 2010 who is the Superior Authority and has recorded his subjective satisfaction as to why the said houses were required to be transferred to Ward No.2 as can be discerned from the last Paragraph of the said order. He has mentioned that considering the population of the concerned wards, the wards were formed and the stated houses were required to be included in Ward No. 2 so as to provide appropriate 2 population to both the wards and in particular to Ward No. 2 which has been reserved for schedule caste female candidates.. There is no allegation that the Collector has passed the order to favour any particular person or has acted biased against the Petitioner. 3. In the circumstances, Petition dismissed. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)