SUNIL RAMCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) Controversy in the appeal relates to election to Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khamgaon and to the traders' constituency. Admittedly, the appellant filed nomination paper as per election programme for the seat of Member of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khamgaon from the traders' constituency. Respondent No. 5-Shekhar Purohit was one of the persons, who had also filed nomination paper. Neither respondent No. 5-Shekhar nor any other rival candidate raised any objection to the nomination paper of the appellant. The Returning Officer held scrutiny of the nomination papers as per the provisions of Rule 50 of the Rules framed under the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and found the nomination paper of the appellant in order and accepted the same. Respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the acceptance of the nomination paper of the appellant on some grounds. The appeal was filed under Rule 51 of the aforesaid Rules. An objection was raised to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that respondent No. 5, though he was one of the nominated candidates, had not raised any objections to the nomination paper of the appellant. That objection, it appears, was not decided by the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside order of the Returning Officer accepting the nomination paper of the appellant.

(3.) That order of the Appellate Authority was challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4960/ 2008. There were many grounds urged challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority but we propose to consider only one ground, which was raised before the learned Single Judge. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that as the appellant before the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No. 5 did not raise any objection to the nomination paper of the appellant be fore the Returning Officer and the Returning Officer also did not raise any objection to the nomination paper of the appellant, respondent No. 5 could not have filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge negated that argument relying on the words of Rule 51 of the Rules that any candidate can file an appeal. Respondent No. 5, according to the learned Single Judge, was admittedly a candidate at the election and, therefore, he was entitled to file an appeal against the order of the Returning Officer either accepting or rejecting the nomination paper.