1 W.P.No.6757.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6757 OF 2010 Sadashiv Bapu Yelvande & ors. ... Petitioners v/s Nighoje Vivid Karyakari Seva Sah. Sanstha Ltd. & ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.S. Dani for the petitioners. Mr.P.I.Khemani, A.G.P. For respondent No.1. Mr.P.M.Gore for respondent Nos.2 to 9. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 30TH AUGUST, 2010 Not on board. P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed challenging the decision of respondent No.12 – the Returning Officer, for accepting the nomination papers of respondent Nos.2 to 10 for the election to respondent No.1 Society. It is the contention of the petitioners that these nomination papers do not disclose the category from which respondent Nos.2 to 10 have filed their nominations for election to respondent No.1 Society. The 2 W.P.No.6757.10 learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is incumbent on each candidate of the election to disclose the electorate from which he wishes to contest the election, namely, those mentioned in the election program and since this has not been done, the nomination papers ought not to have been accepted by the Returning Officer. 2. This submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. No appeal has been provided against the acceptance of nomination forms. An appeal has been provided under Rule 56 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 against an order passed by the Returning Officer while scrutinizing the nomination papers. 3. In my opinion, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the acceptance of the nomination papers, they can always challenge the election in case the respondents are elected to the posts. 4. Writ petition rejected. ..... 3 W.P.No.6757.10