The judgment emphasized the importance of raising objections before the election authority and the limitations on challenging municipal elections after the publication of the notification.

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting-aside notification dated 23rd October, 2012, issued by the respondent Collector, Dhule under section 10 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 ( Hereinafter referred for short as the said Act), for holding election of respondent No.2 and further seeks that this Court shall hold and declare that the scheme of section 10 (2) of the said Act is in breach of Section 341(B) of the said Act.

2. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent No.3 Collector to hold afresh the process for formation of wards to the election of Nagar Panchayat Shindkheda, District Dhule and for a writ of Certiorari for quashing and settingaside the election result declared on 14th January 2013 of the said Nagar Panchayat Shindkheda declaring the respondent Nos. 5 to 25 elected. The petitioner also seeks an order and direction against the respondent No.4 to hold the election of the respondent No.2 Nagar Panchayat afresh and as per scheme of section 341-B of the said Act. Some of the relevant facts for deciding this petition are as under:

3. The petitioner is Exmember of Village Panchayat, Sindkheda and Panchayat Samiti, Shindkheda and is active in political movement and democratic process of election. The name of the petitioner is included in voters list of last Assembly election and election of village panchayat, Sindkheda i.e. in ward No.2 held in 2010 and had exercised his right to vote in last election of village panchayat, Sindkheda held in 2010.

4. Village Panchayat, Shindkheda is abolished and Nagar Panchayat is constituted by the State of Maharashtra by issuing notification dated 17-07-2012. The State of Maharashtra appointed Administrator to look after the business of Nagar Panchayat, Sindkheda.

5. As per the letter dated 13th September, 2012, the State Election Commission, Maharashtra State-Respondent No.4 herein started the process of formation of wards vide letter dated 13-09-2012 and published a detailed programme for formation of wards and allotment of reservations of seats. By the said letter, the Collector, Dhule was required to submit draft proposal for formation of wards on or before 24-09-2012. Last date for according sanction to the draft proposal for formation of wards by Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Nashik Region, Nashik was 28-09-2012. The last date for publication of draft of formation of wards and maps was fixed as 08-10-2012. Last date for inviting objections to the draft proposal of formation of wards from the voters was 16th October, 2012. The date of hearing of the objections was scheduled on 18th October, 2012. Last date for final submission of final opinion on objections of the Regional Director was 20th October, 2012. Date for Publication of final notification u/s 10 was 23rd October, 2012.

6. The respondent No.3 published a draft plan for formation of wards on 6th October, 2012. Pursuant to the said draft plan issued by respondent No.3, the petitioner submitted his objection for formation of wards on 16th October, 2012 and raised various objections. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was present in the office of the Respondent No.3 on 18th October, 2012 but Respondent No.3 did not attend the hearing. On 18th October, 2012, Respondent No.3 rejected the objection raised by the petitioner. The petitioner was informed about the said rejection of the application by letter dated 18th October, 2012 which letter was received by the petitioner on 20th October, 2012. In para No. 7 of the petition, the petitioner has summarized eight objections raised by the petitioner before the respondent No.3 in the letter dated 16th October, 2012.

7. Mr. B.R. Waramaa, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a compilation of judgments and also written submissions for consideration of thi