1 WP 6958.........2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6958 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7000 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Advocate holding for Mr. P.S.Dighe, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.P.Phatake, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Resp. nos. 1 to 3. Mr. N.B.Suryawanshi, Advocate for Resp. No. 4. Mr. S.S.Deshmukh & Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocates for Resp. Nos. 5,7,12,14,15 and 16. Mr. R.R.Karpe, Advocate holding for Mr. H.U.Dhage, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 9 to 11, 13, 16. ................................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :22/09/2011 PER COURT : 1. At the out set, Mr. R.N. Dhorde, the learned counsel seeks leave to delete respondent nos. 4 to 8 and 11 to 16 in Writ Petition No. 6958 of 2011 and seeks leave to delete respondent nos. 5 to 7 and 11, 12, 14 and 15 in Writ Petition No. 7000 of 2011. Leave granted. 2. Mr. Dhorde, the learned counsel for the petitioners 2 WP 6958.........2011 submits that the respondents have not supplied the sugarcane even for the period of five ( 5 ) years prior to the election being held. An objection was raised in that regard, but the Returning Officer erroneously observed that only one objection is raised for all the candidates and the bye- laws are not specific. 3. The information has been supplied by the Karkhana that since last five ( 5 ) years the respondents have not supplied the sugarcane. In view of the same, the said respondents are not eligible to contest the said election from the producer member category. The learned counsel contends that the Returning officer has not taken into consideration this aspect. 4. The respondents have filed their affidavits and have denied the said contentions. They have also stated that the Karkhana had itself issued publication that it would not accept white sugarcane and even the capacity of the Karkhana is such that it could not accept the total sugarcane. 5. The matter involves the disputed questions of facts. Even the last date of withdrawal of nomination is over and the list of contesting candidates has been published. The petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy in the shape of the Election Petition. 3 WP 6958.........2011 6. In light of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file the Election Petition if the need so arises in respect of the issues raised in the present Writ Petition. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6958.........2011 4 WP 6958.........2011