1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3902 OF 2010 (Sudhir U. Satpute vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 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 & P.D. KODE, JJ. JULY 13, 2011. Heard Shri Gupte, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 to 3, Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, Shri Darda, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Shri Mehadia, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. After hearing the respective counsel, it has become clear that village in relation to which the grievance is being made, has already been added to Ward No. 20 of Respondent No. 4 – Municipal Council and that Ward already had/ has a Ward Member elected in due course, who is petitioner before this Court. In this view of the matter, according to Shri Gupte, learned counsel, Respondent No. 3 as a representative of State Election Commission could not have published any election programme for the village, which has now become part of Municipal Council. Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel, is supporting 2 the petitioner. Shri Darda, learned counsel states that after acquisition, the village has been resettled and it has become part of Municipal Council. Shri Mehadia, learned counsel is also not disputing this position. However, the learned GP has pointed out that on Government records, village still independently exists and, therefore, State Election Commission has in exercise of its powers asked the Tahsildar to declare election programme. In this view of the matter, we find that interest of justice can be met with by permitting the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 to make appropriate representation to State Election Commission through Tahsildar – Respondent No. 3, within a period of six weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the State Election Commission shall look into the same and take appropriate steps in the matter in accordance with law at the earliest and in any case within a further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. It is pointed out to this Court that such a representation is already made and pending with Respondent No. 3 – Tahsildar. In view of the admitted position before us, it is apparent that the village, which has become part of Ward No. 20, has already an elected representative. In the circumstances, election programme issued by 3 Tahsildar is quashed and set aside. However, the respondents including State Election Commission are free to further declare election programme, if they find no substance in the representation filed by the petitioner and also respondent No. 3. With these directions and observations, writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.