1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4176 OF 2010 (Tulsiram Tima Kumbhare vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 4177 OF 2010 (Pushpa Ramdas Waghdare vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 4178 OF 2010 (Namdeo Modku Meshram vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 4179 OF 2010 (Mayabai Arvind Jambhulkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 4180 OF 2010 (Kusum Tulsiram Kumbhare vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 4181 OF 2010 (Kunjilal Bala Meshram vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) with WRIT PETITION NO. 4182 OF 2010 (Kunjilal Bala Meshram vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 27, 2010. Shri Karmarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners has demonstrated that nomination paper was submitted within time. S/Shri Mujumdar, Fulzele, Kankale, Thakare, Joshi and Mrs. Deshpande, learned AGPs for respondents No. 1, 3 & 4 in respective writ petitions have pointed out that there were two separate Returning Officers functioning for different Gram Panchayats and the petitioners tendered their nomination paper to a wrong Returning Officer. Receipt of nomination paper by said Returning Officer was, therefore, not for the purposes of election which the petitioners wanted to contest. 2 According to them, the correct Returning Officer has received nomination paper after scheduled time was over and the same have been rightly rejected. Some disputed questions arise in the process, though it is apparent that nomination paper was filed by the petitioners with wrong Returning Officer within time. Hence, with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings after the elections are over, present writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.