( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6972 OF 2010 Ramesh s/o Kondbarao Mulgir PETITIONER VERSUS The State Election Commission and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. M.V. Ghatge, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns acceptance of nomination form of the respondent No. 3 by the respondent No. 2 – Returning Officer. The respondent No. 3 filed her nomination form from ward No.2, which is reserved for female of open category. The petitioner objected her nomination on the ground that she had indicated false name and that she impersonated to be wife of Nilkanth s/o Madhavrao Mulgir. The Returning Officer rejected the objection on the ground that name of the respondent No. 3 appears in the voters’ list. ( 2 ) 3. The election is scheduled on 8th August, 2010 and the petition is against acceptance of nomination form of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner has raised disputed questions of facts. The question whether the respondent No. 4 is wife of Nilkanth s/o Ramrao Mulgir or is wife of Nilkanth s/o Madhavrao Mulgir, is the question of fact, which is to be decided by the Court after the regular enquiry. At present, such a disputed question of fact cannot be deemed as sufficient ground to entertain the petition and particularly when the process is at fag end. Hence, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to agitate all the questions of facts and law by way of election petition or in any other proceedings. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp6972-10