(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1436 OF 2011 Mahantappa s/o. Ganpati Bargal, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kamtha (Bu.), Taluka : Ardhapur, .. Petitioner District : Nanded. (Original appellant) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 2. The Regurning Officer, Bhaurao Chavan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Laxminagar, Deagaon-Yelegaon, Taluka : Ardhapur, District : Nanded. 3. The Bhaurao Chavan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Laxminagar, Deagaon-Yelegaon, Taluka : Ardhapur, District : Nanded, Through its Managing Director. .. Respondents Respondent nos.4 to 19 deleted. ....................... (2) Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.J. Choudhary, Advocate, holding for Mr. A.G. Choudhari, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Respondent nos. 4 to 19 deleted. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9TH MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, appearing for the petitioner; learned AGP Mr. S.K. Tambe, appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, and Mr. D.J. Choudhari, appearing for respondent no.3. 2. The nomination form of the petitioner for the post of Director of a Sugar Factory has been rejected after holding that he did not supply sugarcane to Karkhana in the year 2007-08. Effort of Adv. Mr. Chincholkar is to state that sugarcane was grown in lands belonging to joint family and it was supplied to factory in the name of son Ganesh. To substantiate this, he (3) points out that from price of that sugarcane, loan repayable by the petitioner has been adjusted. He further points out that the defence, that said sugarcane was grown by Ganesh independently in some lands at village Nandusa, is without any merit because of documents produced on record showing that Ganesh had no such lands at village Nandusa 3. Adv. Mr. D.J. Choudhari, for respondent no.3, has invited attention to consideration by Returning Officer, as also, by the appellate authority, to urge that several disputed questions arise. He points out that the petitioner is shown as owner of Gut No. 251 of village Kamtha and in it, 54 Are portion was shown for old sugarcane. The petitioner admittedly did not supply that sugarcane. The other field with the family is Gut No. 233 also at village Kamtha and it is in the name of wife and son of the petitioner. Crop entries do not show any sugarcane plantation therein. He, therefore, states that the Returning Officer, as also, appellate authority has rightly appreciated the controversy. 4. The defence of the petitioner is, he did not supply sugarcane from Gut No. 251 as it was to be used for seed purposes. The other land owned by the family is Gut No. 233 and admittedly crop entries therein do not show any sugarcane crop. The report of Managing Director reveal that son Ganesh (4) had planted sugarcane in 80 Are land at village Nandosa and that was supplied in 2007-08. 5. Thus, disputed questions of fact arise which cannot be gone into by this court in this jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, not entertained. 6. With liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before appropriate forum in accordance with law, the petition is disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/1436wp