1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3553 OF 2010 (Santosh Bhanudas Wakode vs. The Returning Officer, Elections of Gram Panchayat, Akola & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 03, 2010. Shri Malokar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sonare, learned AGP for Respondents No. 1 & 2, Shri Kothari, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Shri Band, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The contention of Shri Malokar, learned counsel is, there was only one candidate against him and only to see that the petitioner is ousted from contest, he was not informed of full arrears on 20.07.2010. He points out that though demand notice was never served upon the petitioner, the petitioner had voluntarily gone to Gram Panchayat and enquired about the arrears and paid the amount of Rs.3,710/- as informed to him. Thereafter he submitted the nomination form and thereafter he learnt that some more amount is being shown as in arrears. Hence, he went to Gram Panchayat on 24.07.2010 and made further enquiry and deposited that amount of Rs.500/-. His contention is, 24.07.2010 was the last date of filing of nomination form. He states that as there was no service of any demand notice to the 2 petitioner, the petitioner cannot be treated as defaulter under Section 14(1)(h) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, and as the petitioner paid substantial amount voluntarily on 20.07.2010, it is apparent that he could have also paid alleged balance amount of Rs.500/- on that date. His contention is, all the records are manipulated to favour Respondent No. 3, the only contesting candidate in the ward. He also relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Ramaji Rewatkar vs. Dilip Tulsiram Rewatkar, reported at 2006 (5) All MR 401. The learned AGP states that the contentions itself raised disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court. Shri Kothari and Shri Band, learned counsel for respective respondents are disputing these propositions. The petitioner no doubt has paid substantial amount on 20.07.2010. However total amount paid by him is Rs.3,710/- and it comprised of current amount of Rs.530/- and arrears of Rs.3,180/-. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. With liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to remedy as may be available in accordance with law, present writ petition is rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.