1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9871 OF 2010 Digambar s/o Bandu Sontakke Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Election Commission, through District Collector, Nanded & another Respondents Mr. G.R.Ingole, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondents. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th October, 2010. P.C.: 1 Nomination paper tendered by the petitioner with a view to contest election to the seat of a member of village panchayat has been turned down by the Returning Officer on the ground that name of the candidate appearing in the voters’ list does not tally with the name of the candidate recorded on the nomination paper. Petitioner has presented his nomination paper in the name as “Sontakke Digambar”, whereas, in the voters’ list, name of the petitioner is recorded as “Sontakke Tukaram”. 2 According to learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, error appearing in recording name of the petitioner in the electoral roll is a printing error and cannot be said to be a 2 defect of substantial character. 3 It is contended by learned Counsel appearing for State Election Commission that the question goes to the root of the matter as identity of the candidate is required to be verified. Name appearing in the voters’ list does not tally with the name recorded by the candidate in the nomination paper and said defect cannot be said to be a defect of casual nature, which is capable of being corrected. It is contended that there are stages prescribed in respect of preparation of voters’ list and it was open for the petitioner to apply to the authorities and seek correction in his name appearing in the voters’ list. It is not open for the Returning Officer to ratify the mistake appearing in the voters’ list, which is prepared after observing procedure prescribed under law. 4 In this view of the matter, decision rendered by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper tendered by petitioner cannot be said to be erroneous. Petitioner may have liberty to avail of alternate remedy provided under law. Petition is devoid of substance. 5 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp987110