skt/- 1 26.wp.3059.2010.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3059 OF 2010 Shikandar Ismail Mujawar ... Petitioner Vs. The Collector, Pune & Ors. ... Respondents ...... Mr.Milind Ingole for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4; Mr.Sachindra B. Shetye for respondent no.3. ...... CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 27th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. By this petition, some villagers of village Jalgaon-Supe, Taluka Baramati, District Pune have questioned the orders passed by the Collector, Pune rejecting the petitioner’s objection to demarcation of wards in the village. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this demarcation has not been done in accordance with the Rule 3 of the Bombay skt/- 2 26.wp.3059.2010.sxw Village Panchayats (Number of Members, Divisions into Wards and Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1966. He could not point out that the demarcation breaches the rule which requires division of the village into suitable wards so that the ratio between the members to be elected from each ward and the population thereof is same. There is also no grievance that any localities of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes have been fragmented. The boundary of ward No.1 appears to be one road from village Supe to village Karshel. Thus, the geographical situation has also been taken into consideration. The grievance of the petitioner before the Tahasildar and the Collector was that a deliberate attempt had been made to exclude a particular category of voters from the same ward by giving wrong figures. However, the petitioner has not pointed out before the authorities as to how the figures of the population are not correct or how any malafide attempt has been made by the authorities to exclude the voters of any particular community. It cannot be stated that the demarcation carried out by the Tahasildar was in breach of the skt/- 3 26.wp.3059.2010.sxw rules. The Collector had considered all the objections raised by the petitioners and had rightly rejected their objections. 3. In view of this, as the Writ Petition has no merits and is dismissed. [ R.C.CHAVAN, J. ]