(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9426 OF 2010 Madhukar s/o. Narhari Khodke, Age : 39 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Sugaon [Bk.], Taluka : Nanded, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Election Commissioner, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai. 3. The Collector, Nanded. 4. The Tahsildar, Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. G.R. Ingole, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. (2) Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 7TH OCTOBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that though reservation, as provided under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 5 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Number of Members, Divisions Into Wards and Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1966 (For short, "the Rules"), was provided for some other ward, the same has been changed in the final notification under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 5 of the Rules. 2. Mr. G.R. Ingole, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the reservation which was provided in the draft notification is mala fidely changed by the authorities. 3. The notification which is published under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 5 is draft notification and the authority i.e. the Collector is required to issue final notification under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 5, after considering objections of the voters. It is, thus, clear that it (3) is always permissible for the Collector to change the reservation provided under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 5, after considering the objections. 4. In so far as the contention of the petitioner, regarding act being mala fide, is concerned, by now, it is settled law that in order to substantiate the allegations of mala fides, the persons against whom mala fides are attributed, should be impleaded as party respondents and specific allegations should be made against them. Neither such persons are made party respondents nor specific allegations have been made in the petition in that respect. In that view of the matter, we are not in a position to consider the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, regarding mala fides. 5. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp9426