1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5687 OF 2010 Vithal Namdeo Tambe and others .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioners. Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondent/State. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 05TH JULY, 2010. PER COURT : . This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari directing for quashing and setting aside the election programme issued by the 4th respondent i. e. Returning Officer for the elections to the Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society, Tamba Rajuri, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed and further prays for directing the Returning Officer to publish a fresh programme. 2 2. According to petitioners very hastily the election programme came to be declared by the Returning Officer in collusion with the thirteen persons who ultimately submitted their nomination forms. The constituency of the society comprises of about six hundred members out of which nearly five hundred members had submitted a representation to the Returning Officer pointing out that the election programme had not been published in accordance with law and false and bogus panchanama regarding publication of the election programme had been drawn. This had resulted in all the other eligible candidates being kept out of the fray. The petitioners, therefore, have prayed for aforesaid relief. 3. As per the election programme, the preliminary voters list was to be displayed on 16.05.2010 and the voting is scheduled to be held on 11.07.2010 for the thirteen posts of the society. It appears that, the total nominations received for the aforesaid posts were thirteen and virtually all the candidates who had submitted their nominations stand elected in post on account of the fact that the election programme has completely culminated in the declaration of the result. We are not inclined to interfere at this late stage in this petition. The writ petition is accordingly 3 dismissed with no order as to costs. 4. Since we have not decided the merits of case, the petitioners may resort to the remedies available in law of challenging the election of elected candidates. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10