1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7696 OF 2010 Sumanbai @ Sangitabai w/o Sandu Kalatre,age: 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o Khedi, Tq. Sillod, Dist.Aurangabad. Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra\ through Rural Development Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 The State Election Commissioner, State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 3 The Returning Officer, Village Panchayat, Khedi, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad. 4 Nana s/o Fakira Kalatre, age: 40 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Khedi, Taluka Sillod, District Auranagabad. 5 Shivaji s/o Gahenaji Sabale, age: 42 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Khedi, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad. Respondents Mr.V.P.Latange, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondents No.2 & 3. Mr.S.K.Chavan, advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 25 th August, 2010. 2 P.C.: 1 The nomination paper tendered by petitioner with a view to contest election to a seat of member of Village Panchayat Khedi, Tq. Sillod, has been turned down by the Returning Officer. 2 Petitioner tendered her nomination paper in the name of `Kalatre Sumanbai alias Sangitabai Sandu’ with a view to contest election from Other Backward Class woman category. Along with the nomination paper, a certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Buldana dated 20.03.2010 is produced by the petitioner. The certificate is issued in the name of `Sangita Kisan Borade’ certifying therein that she belongs to `Kunbi’ caste, which is included in Other Backward Class category. 3 An objection was raised by the objector in respect of acceptance of nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that name mentioned in the nomination paper as `Kalatre Sumanbai @ Sangitabai Sandu’ does not tally with the name appearing in the voters list. It is further contended that Sumanbai Sandu Kalatre had already died and her death certificate is also placed on record. Considering the objections raised by the objector, the Returning Officer proceeded to reject the nomination paper. 4 It is the contention of the petitioner that she is second wife of Sandu Kalatre and her maiden name was Sangita Kisan Borade and after her marriage, her name is changed to `Sumanbai’ and the name of first wife of her husband was also Sumanbai. It is further claimed by the 3 petitioner that she married some 20 years back and she has two children born out of the wedlock. 5 Although it is contended by the petitioner that her name is changed from Sangitabai to Sumanbai after marriage, the caste certificate, however, which has been issued in the year 2010, is in the name of `Sangitabai Kisan Borade’. If the contention of the petitioner, that her marriage took place somewhere in 1995 or 1996, is accepted, there was no reason for issuance of certificate in her maiden name by the Sub Divisional Officer, Buldana. In a summary enquiry conducted by the Returning Officer, the objection tendered by the objector is upheld and in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for causing interference. It is also to be noted that all the stages of election are over and only votes are to be recorded on 5th September 2010. Considering these aspects of the matter, this is not a fit case for causing interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. Petitioner may avail of alternate remedy available in law. 6 Writ Petition stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp799610