1 wp 9798.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9798 OF 2011 Shivaji Amrutrao Gondkar and others .. Petitioner Versus The State Election Commission Maharashtra through Commissioner and others .. Respondents Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri U. S. Malte, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri D. V. Tele, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard Shri Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is patent illegality committed by the Returning Officer, in view of that there is no bar to entertain the writ petition. There are no disputed questions of fact as there is patent illegality committed, this Court would invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2 wp 9798.11 2. Shri Malte, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submits that, the bar under Article 243(ZG) of the Constitution of India would apply and as such the petition would not be maintainable. 3. There are no fetters on the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, but none the less the every provision of the Constitution will have to be respected. Article 243-ZG (b) reads as under : 243ZG. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.— Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,— (a) .............................. (b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. 4. In view of said provision, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is as such dismissed with the 3 wp 9798.11 liberty to the petitioner to avail such alternate remedy as is available under the law. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11