SURESHRAO S/O GOVINDRAO GAWHALE Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri Khubalkar and Shri Kale, A.G.Ps. waive notice for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri Lambat, the learned counsel, waives notice for the respondent no.3. By consent, heard finally.

(2.) ALL these three writ petitions challenge the order passed by the respondent no.2-Returning Officer, dated 10th June, 2006, thereby rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioners, and the order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 26th June, 2006, thereby rejecting the appeals preferred by the present petitioners.

(3.) AS against this, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, submitted that in order to ascertain as to whether the candidates comply with the requirement as specified in the bye-laws, the Returning Officer had called for a report from the respondent no.3-Society. He submitted that in the said report, it was found that the petitioner, though had supplied sugar-cane for the period 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, but had not supplied the same for the period 2004-2005. He, therefore, submitted that rejection of the nomination papers was on the valid grounds. Since there was a dispute as to whether the petitioners had, in fact, supplied the sugar-cane for the required period, the respondent no.3 was added as party to the petitions. The respondent no.3 has filed affidavit in reply, stating therein that except the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3126/2006, the petitioners in other two writ petition have, in fact, supplied the sugar-cane for the last three years, as required.