1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3545 OF 2009 Vandana Damodhar Wikey .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents Shri Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.B.Khandare, Govt.Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 15th JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. This petition came to be filed in the morning and was mentioned before us at 10.30 a.m for seeking circulation at the end of the Board. Urgency was expressed for circulation of this matter and accordingly, this Court granted circulation and this is how the matter which was filed in the morning at 10.30 a.m is placed before us for admission. 2 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned Notification dated 25th September 2008 by which the post of President has been reserved for other backward class. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide reservation as per the roster and in conformity with the mandate of Article 243-T (4) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from holding the elections of the post of President, Municipal Council, Hingoli. 3. A notification came to be issued on 25th September 2008 by which the post of President, Municipal Council was reserved for candidate belonging to other backward class. This petition has been filed impugning the said notification. The challenges raised in the petition are two folds. Firstly, it is the contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid reservation has been carved out in utter disregard of the roster which is provided and secondly, it is urged before us that the said reservation for the post of President for other backward class category candidates is contrary to the mandate of Rule 2-A of the Maharashtra Municipalities (President Election) Rules, 1981. It may be 3 useful to mention at this juncture that the notification in respect of the said election had already been issued and the polling is scheduled for tomorrow i.e. 16th June 2009. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment in “Prashant Bansilal Bamb vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.”, 2007 (2) ALL MR 326, particularly the observations of the Court at paragraph 19 as well as to unreported judgment of Division Bench of this Court to urge before us that the policy of rotation has to be followed by respondents, both in letters as well as in its spirit. No particular caste or community would be favoured in the sense that a reservation is repeatedly made in favour of that caste or community. In that background, therefore, it is urged before us that the respondents are “patronizing” a particular caste/community and, therefore, the interference of this Court is necessary. 5. Notification in respect of the election of the post of President has already been issued. The polling is scheduled to be held tomorrow. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the unreported Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5386 of 2006 dated 15.9.2006 in the facts of the present case is inapplicable 4 thereto. Since the polling is scheduled for tomorrow, we decline to interfere in this petition as cross interference in the election scheduled for tomorrow. Petition is accordingly summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/wp3545.09)