1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6583 OF 2007 Laxman Baliram Waghmare .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents Shri S. G. Chpalgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 to 4. Shri A. B. Kale, Advocate h/f Shri B. K. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 05TH MAY, 2010. ORAL ORDER [Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] : . Heard. 2. The petitioner filed nomination paper for contesting election. Petitioner was one of the contesting candidate in the election held for Ward No. 3 of Village Gram Panchayat 2 Narangwadi, Tq. Omerga. There were eight candidates who filed their nominations. According to the counsel for the petitioner five candidates have withdrawn their nominations. One Vaijnath Suryawanshi also filed his nomination paper. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's nomination was withdrawn by the petitioner. There is no grievance on that count. The grievance of the petitioner is that the nomination of Vaijnath Suryawanshi said to have been fraudulently withdrawn, when actually Vaijnath Suryawanshi did not withdraw his nomination paper. The petitioner has therefore challenged the election on the ground that the withdrawal of nomination was fraudulent and manipulated in respect of the candidature of Vaijnath Suryawanshi. 3. Said Vaijnath Suryawanshi has not been made party respondent in this petition. He is the aggrieved person under the provisions of Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act 1958. Remedy is provided for filing election petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on reported judgment 2002(2) Bom. C. R. 234 (II) in support of his contention that if fraud is played in the election, this Court is empowered to set aside the election We do not dispute the 3 proposition as laid down in the judgment cited supra. 5. Each case will have to be considered on its own merits, facts and circumstances. In the facts of the case, we find that the issue of locus of the petitioner is involved. Vaijnath Suryawanshi is not made party respondent to the proceeding. We are not aware what is the stand of Vaijnath Suryawanshi. 6. Learned counsel Shri Shelke appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that Vaijnath Suryawanshi had also filed election petition before the appropriate tribunal under Section 15(1)(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act 1958. 7. In the light of the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. The dismissal of this writ petition would not affect the election petition filed by the Vaijnath Suryawanshi if any. It should be decided on its own merits, if not already decided. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/May 10