1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9915 OF 2010 Sahebrao s/o Poshatti Devad .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State Election Commissioner & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. G.R. Ingole, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for respondent no. 1. & 2. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent no. 3. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 21 st OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1 It is the contention of the petitioner that although the papers were presented alongwith the nomination paper demonstrating that he has tendered proposal with the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste claim, the Returning Officer deliberately did not keep the documents on record and proceeded to reject the nomination paper tendered by the petitioner. It is also contended that the order has been passed by the Returning Officer after the date prescribed for scrutiny of nomination paper which is an illegality. The Returning Officer has tendered affidavit and 2 refuted the allegations made against him. Considering the disputed nature of question involved in the petition, it is desirable that the petitioner shall avail of the alternate remedy provided under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. In exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for in the instant petition. Petition stands rejected. 2 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp9915.10.odt