(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7824 OF 2009 Panchaphula w/o. Vitthal Chamkurwar & 2 others. .. Petitioners. versus The State of Maharashtra & 5 others. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. M.V. Ghatge, Advocate, for the petitioners. Smt. S.D. Shelke, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Mr. I.D. Maniyar, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 and 6. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER 2009. (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged rejection of their nomination papers, which were filed for elections of Grampanchayat, Alegaon (Taluka & District : Nanded). 2. The elections are scheduled to be held on 26th November 2009 i.e. after a period of two days from today. 3. Mr. S.T. Shelke, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, Election Commission, in view of advance notice, makes a categorical statement that any interference at this stage would amount to stalling the election process. He relies on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Election Commission of India through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar and others (AIR 2000 SC 2977). 4. Mr. M.V. Ghatge, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that in identical matters, this court has interfered and, therefore, on parity the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief. 5. No doubt, that this court in some matters, wherein though inspite of production of validity certificates the nomination papers were rejected, interfered and directed acceptance of nomination paper subject to the result of the petition. However, the petitioners in those petitions have approached well in advance, so that necessary arrangements could be made by the Election Commission for including their names. Apart from this, in the said cases, validity of the candidates was already (3) decided, whereas in the present case, the validity is yet to be decided. 6. I am of the considered view that any interference at this stage would stall election process which would not be permissible in writ jurisdiction. In any event, the petitioners can very well avail of the remedy by filing election petition, after the elections are over. 7. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with the aforesaid observations. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7824