1 W.P. 9362..........2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9362 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9363 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders ................................ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 05/12/2011. Mr. SP.Sonpawale, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. Nirlekar, Advocate holding for Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for Resp. No. 1. ............................. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Sonpawale, the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The learned counsel submits that the District Court has wrongly observed that the Appeal is not maintainable on the ground that all the contesting candidates were not made parties. According to the learned counsel, on the date when the Appeal was filed, the list of valid contesting candidates was 2 W.P. 9362..........2011 not published. Even an application was subsequently made for amendment. But, the same was erroneously rejected. The learned counsel further contends that the party from which the petitioner choose to contest, was recognized by the Election Commission, but was not recognized by the State Commission. But, prior to the nomination form, had applied for recognition and the same was granted on 29/11/2011 and the same should relate back to the date of the application. The rules deal with filing of nomination form for the particular Ward, it nowhere deals with filing of the nomination for division [ ‘ Prabhag’ ]. As such, Rule 12 would not come in the way of the petitioner simply because the same proposer has also proposed to another candidate from different division [ ‘ Prabhag’ ]. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the Returning Officer. Rule 15 ( 5 ) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1966 reads as under : “ In every Appeal under this rule, the appellant shall join as respondents all the candidates [ other than himself ], whose nominations have been accepted by the Returning Officer ”. 4. In the present case, admittedly, there were different 3 W.P. 9362..........2011 candidates contesting from the same division [ ‘ Prabhag’ ]/Ward. They are not made parties and as such the District Judge was right in observing that the Appeal was not maintainable in said count. 5. In view of the fact that the Appeal itself was not maintainable before the District Judge, the other points need not be considered. 6. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 7. Needless to state that the petitioners may file Election Petition if so advised and if the same is maintainable. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 9362..........2011