sk 1 wp10237.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.10237 OF 2011 Shri Madhukar Y. Musale : Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.M.S.Karnik for the petitioner. Mr.Vijay Patil, Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1. Mr.S.B.Shetye for respondent no.2. Mr.A.P.Kulkarni for respondent no.3. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 22, 2011. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the final notification of demarcation of ward in the ensuing elections to the Pune Municipal Corporation in respect of ward nos.8 and 9. According to Mr.Karnik, the learned counsel sk 2 wp10237.11 for the petitioner, the draft notification which was published had proposed the correct demarcation and there was no reason for the respondent State Election Commission to alter boundaries in relation to ward nos.8 and 9 of the draft notification only on the basis of objections received from two persons, one from each ward. Mr.Shetye, the learned counsel for the State Election Commission, submitted that it was realised, after considering the objections raised by citizens that, inter alia, two villages had been bifurcated into ward nos.8 and 9 and it was realised that if both these villages are kept in one ward, it would be more convenient from the point of view of canvassing, voting, counting, etc. It was further realised that it would be better that natural boundary formed by the Ram river is adhered to. Moreover, from the affidavit of one D.M.Kaned on behalf of the State Election Commission, it appears that even though a noticeable portion has been taken away from ward no.8 and put under ward no.9, in fact, the impact on the population is minimal, in view of the following:- In the draft notification, the total population of ward no.8 was 30,933 and ward no.9 was 29,175. After the final notification, the population of ward no.8 has become 29,703 and population of ward no.9 has become 30,405. This is clearly within the permissible limit of 10% plus and 10% minus which is provided by guidelines dated 16.8.2011. sk 3 wp10237.11 3. In the circumstances, there is no illegality in the final notification and it is not a fit case for interference by this Court. Rule is discharged. (S.A. BOBDE, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)