ASHOK PUNDLIKRAO PATIL Vs. SHASHIKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Advo-cate Mr. Salunke for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Ad-vocate Mr. G.V. Patil for respondent No. 4.

(2.) Acceptance of nomination paper of re-spondent No. 1 in election of respondent No. 4-sugar factory by Returning Officer by one word order thereby overruling the objection of respective petitioner is questioned in present matters.

(3.) By inviting attention to the provisions of Bye-laws No. 17-A r/w 27-A and 29-GH, Advocate Mr. Salunke has contended that supply of sugar cane by aspirant continu-ously for three years prior to holding of elec-tion is must to cloth him with eligibility to contest the election. Here, he points out that respective respondent No. 1 has not supplied sugar cane to respondent No. 4 in the year 2007-2008 and he relies upon certificate is-sued by the Managing Director of respond-ent No. 4 for said purpose. He points out that sugar factory did not function in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 season and hence, even if it is presumed the respondent No. 1 did sup-ply sugar cane in those two years, his failure to supply it in the year 2007-2008 is itself sufficient and his nomination paper ought to have been rejected. He has invited atten-tion to the fact that the order accepting the nomination paper does not disclose any rea-sons and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have for the first time in reply affidavit attempted to introduce such reason. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, 1978 AIR(SC) 851 to contend that such affidavit or supplying separate reasons needs to be ignored. He further points out that there is absolutely nothing on record to show that alleged reasons recorded separately by the Returning Officer on 23.3.2011 were com-municated to any of the petitioner and for that purpose he also invites attention to the alleged reasons which are recorded and its alleged communication issued to Shri. Gokul V. Shinde one of the petitioner. According tc him, as there is proper affidavit in this re-spect, the said contention in defence can not be accepted.