1 WP 6299.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6299 OF 2011 Abhiman (Abhimanyu) S/o Bapaji Karpe .... PETITIONER V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and others .... RESPONDENTS Mr. D.J.Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.N.Irpatgire, Advocate for Resp. No. 7. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 06/09/2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner has challenged the acceptance of nomination of present respondent no. 7 on the count that on the last date of submission of the nomination paper, respondent no. 7 was defaulter. The Returning Officer rejected the objection of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2 WP 6299.2011 4. Mr. D.J.Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the petitioner has made the payment of amount on 13/08/2011. The last date for submission of nomination form was 11/08/2011. When the nomination paper was filed, respondent no. 7 was not competent to contest the election. The learned counsel further contends that respondent no. 5 has filed affidavit and substantiated the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 7 deposited the amount on 13/08/2011. Even the report was submitted by respondent no. 5 on receiving the report from the Returning Officer clarifying the position that respondent no. 7 has made payment on 13/08/2011 and the counter foil showing the payment has been made on 10/08/2011, was issued by mistake. According to the learned counsel, though yesterday i.e. on 05/09/2011 the valid list of contesting candidate is published, still this Court can entertain the petition. The 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 the case of Manchak S/o Shahaji Pawar V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2011 ( 3 ) Mh.L.J. - 833. 5. Per contra, Mr. Irpatgire, the learned counsel for 3 WP 6299.2011 respondent no. 7 submits that the payment was made on 10/08/2011 and the counter foil showing the payment was made on 10/08/2011, is explicit. The date is put by stamp as well as it is hand written also. The learned counsel contends that all stages in the process of election, except voting, are over. Even the list of contesting candidate is published. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment in the case of Shri. Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami ( Moingiri Maharaj ) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2002 ( 2 ) Bom.C.R. - 149 and submits that at this stage the petition can not be entertained and the parties are at liberty to avail alternate remedy for filing election dispute. The learned counsel also relies on Rule 56 (N) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules. 6. The factum as to when respondent no. 7 has made the payment i.e. on 10/08/2011 or 13/08/2011 is the disputed question of fact. The same will have to be proved by adducing evidence. Today all the stages in the process of election, except voting, are over. Even the list of contesting candidate is published. The petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy available at its disposal i.e. filing an election petition. Though it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dalsing Shamsing Rajput and the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Manchak Shahajji Pawar 4 WP 6299.2011 referred supra that the Writ Petition can be entertained even during the process of election, still as the matter involves disputed question of fact and relying on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Saint Satguru referred supra, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The petitioner is at liberty to file election petition if the need so arises. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations. It is made clear that I have not opined on the merits of the matter. 7. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6299.2011