1 wp8111.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION No. 8111 OF 2011 Ishwar S/o Pralhad Mahajan PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. RESPONDENTS ...... Shri S. D. Hiwrekar, advocate for the petitioner Shri R.P. Phatke, Addl. G.P. for respondent/State. ...... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20th October, 2011. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner challenges the order of Appellate Authority accepting nomination of respondent nos. 4 to 6 and setting aside the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination papers of respondent nos. 4 to 6. 2. Shri Hiwrekar, learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contends that as per Rule 56-N of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, the nomination paper of candidate has to be proposed and seconded by the persons belonging to the same constituency from which the nomination paper is filled. In the 2 wp8111.11 present case, admittedly the proposer and seconder of the nomination papers of respondent nos. 4 to 6 are of different constituency from which the said respondents have filled in their nomination papers. Learned counsel contends that at this stage also this Court can entertain the matter as the election programme would not be disturbed even if the matter is entertained. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Dalsing S/o Shamsing Rajput V/s State of Maharashtra and others" reported in " 2006(3) Mh.L.J. 592" and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3818 of 2010 dated 29th April, 2010. Learned counsel contends that ballot papers are not yet prepared and as such when on the face of it, nomination paper is illegal, respondent nos. 4 to 6 cannot be allowed to contest the elections. Reasons given by the Appellate Authority are per-se erroneous. The defects in the nomination paper was not clerical but was defect of substantial character, which could not be cured on the day of scrutiny. 3. Shri Phatke, learned Additional G.P. submits that all the process of elections are complete except the voting. Ballot papers of all other constituencies are prepared except the non-borrowing constituency. Learned counsel contends that at this stage, Petition 3 wp8111.11 can not be entertained. 4. Perusal of the election programme, it is manifest that all the process of elections is complete except voting. Even list of valid contesting candidates and distribution of symbols has taken place on 15.10.2011. It would be in appropriate at this stage to interfere with the said election process. The petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy available by way of Election Petition. 5. In view of the fact that the process of election is complete and only voting has remained and in view of the fact that an alternate remedy is available, I am not entertaining the Petition. Petition is as such disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file Election Petition or any such proceedings challenging the nomination/election of respondent nos. 4 to 6, if need so arises. No costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE ga s/wp 8111.11