1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3781 OF 2009 Ashok Sitaram Misal. Petitioner. V E R S U S The returning Officer and others. Respondents. Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for the resp.State. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 23rd JUNE, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 08.04.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner Aurangabad by which appeal filed by the present petitioner challenging the order dated 17.02.2009 came to be rejected on the ground that appeal is not maintainable. 2. Shri V. D. Salunke, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of provisions of Section 33 (5) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, appeal is very much tenable. 3. From the record, it is clear that the Additional Commissioner has canceled the election of respondent No.3 on the 2 ground that some of the votes were not validly casted and has directed fresh elections to be held. Being aggrieved thereby an appeal was preferred by the present petitioner. 4. From the order it is clearly seen that fresh elections has been directed. In that view of the matter, I do not find any case is made out for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Though the learned counsel is right in submitting that an appeal is tenable under section 33 (5) against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. I do not find necessity in interfering the said matter only on academic question. Hence rejected. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp3781.09 3