MAHESH V JAVKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties.

(2.) The learned AGP waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1,4 and 5. Mr. Sabrad waives service on behalf of Respondent No.6. Service of rule on Respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with.

(3.) It is an admitted position that Respondent No.6 has not raised objection to the nomination of the Petitioner before the Returning Officer/Presiding Officer. It is an admitted position that the objection which was raised before the Returning Officer/ Presiding Officer was only in respect of the word "independent" and that objection was turned down and the Petitioner was declared as validly nominated candidate. Respondent No.6 filed an Appeal under Section 51(4) which appeal has been allowed by the Commissioner in his capacity as Regional Director of Municipal Administration by holding that the Petitioner has not complied with the mandatory requirement of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats (Election of President) Rules, 1981 as amended on 10 th June, 2009. The nomination paper which is available on record shows that it was not submitted by the Petitioner but was submitted by the Proposer of the Petitioner. Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules contemplates that the nomination paper can be submitted either by the candidate or by the authorized representative of the candidate. The Commissioner has recorded a finding of the fact that the proposer was not an authorized representative of the Petitioner. That finding of fact cannot be held to be perverse.