1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR W.P.NO.4198 of 2010 Shashimohan V.Banpurkar ..vs.. The Collector, Chandrapur and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.A.S.Kilor, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.D.P.Thakre, AGP for resp.nos.1 and 2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 1, 2010. Heard. Contentions, in view of AIR 1970 Bombay 96 (Ramdas Sheoramji ..vs.. Panjab Govindraoji and ors.) of Division Bench Judgment of this court, nomination paper could not have been rejected only because name of the petitioner appears in voters list from two wards. Learned AGP has filed reply and opposed this contention. He also points out that person who objected has not been joined as party respondent. According to Adv.Kilor, as objection is misconceived and time available for consideration was very short, service upon private party was practically impossible. He has requested the court to permit him to implead said objector as party and to make the result of elections/election subject to outcome of present writ 2 petition. This court cannot visualize the arguments, which the objector could have advanced before this court. The contention of Advocate Kilor that no other arguments on theses facts are possible, cannot be accepted. I, therefore, find that this court cannot take cognizance as necessary party is not impleaded. After the elections are actually held, remedy of filing election petition is provided in statute. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere. All contentions of Advocate Kilor are left open for adjudication in election petition. Writ petition is rejected. No costs. JUDGE chute