1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 452/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4188/2009 ( Chinnaji Bhimayya Nalboga -: versus :- Sub Divisional Officer Chandrapur ) 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 AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 09, 2009. Heard Shri R.S. Sundram, learned Counsel for appellant and Mrs. B. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent. Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that the scrutiny was fixed on 26.09.2009 from 11 a.m. onwards and hence, the mere fact that the appellant approached the Returning Officer at 2 p.m. cannot be the reason to deny the opportunity of rectification to appellant. It is stated that this argument is without prejudice to the basic contention, that request for rectification was made immediately i.e. Even before scrutiny was over. We have perused the replies filed as also the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. The facts being stated before us are in dispute. According to the Returning Officer, no request was made to him and no leave was sought to rectify the mistake and work of scrutiny was over on 2 26.09.2009 at 1.35 in the afternoon. After the work was over at 2 p.m., the appellant approached him. In these circumstances, because of disputed facts, we find that Election Petition is the only remedy available to the appellant in the matter. Hence, leaving all the questions raised by the appellant open for consideration in such election petition, if filed, we dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.