1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7717 OF 2010 Tayabai Jagan Bhill, ...APPELLANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. G.V.Wani,Advocate for Appellant. Shri. V.D.Rakh,A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to5. Shri. S.T.Shelke,Advocate for Respondent No.6. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr.Wani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant-petitioner wants to contest the election from Ward No.2 of Tarkheda (Kh) Gram Panchayat, Ta. Pachora, 2 District Jalgaon,which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe General Category, but inadvertently the appellant-petitioner filed nomination form indicating her ward as “Scheduled Tribe Woman”. The Appellant-petitioner had mentioned the Ward Number correctly, but Returning Officer rejected nomination form as the said Ward was not reserved for Scheduled Tribe Woman. 3. By order dated 26th August, 2010 learned Single Judge (Coram : R.M.BORDE, J.) rejected the petition on the ground that ”the defect appearing in presentation of nomination paper is of substantial character and as such, no interference is permissible.” 4. Mr.Wani, learned counsel appearing for appellant placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Smt. Shobha Ashok Patil Vs. Smt. Mahananda Rajram Nikam and others reported in 1998(1) Bom.C.R.700. 3 5. We have perused the citation cited supra. We find that the election process had already commenced, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Appellant-petitioner may resort to alternate remedy, as permissible in law. The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK