Gyanoba Trimbakrao Shirale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1261 Bom

                                       1                       1068 wp 4044.17.odt



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        WRIT PETITION NO. 4044 OF 2017


        Gyanba s/o Trimbakrao Shirale,
        Age: 42 years, Occ: Agril.,
        R/o. Phulkalas, Post: Tadkalas,
        Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.          ...       Petitioner

                 Vs.

1)      The State of Maharashtra
        Through Hon'ble Minister,
        Marketing Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

2)      The Director of Marketing,
        Maharashtra State, Pune
        3rd Floor, New Administrative
        Building, Pune - 411 001.

3)      The Divisional Joint Registrar,
        Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad
        Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad.

4)      The District Deputy Registrar,
        Co-operative Societies, Parbhani,
        Tq. and Dist. Parbhani.

5)      The Assistant Registrar,
        Co-operative Societies, Purna,
        Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.

6)      The Returning Officer,
        Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
        Tadkalas, Tq. Purna,
        Dist. Parbhani.

7)      The Agricultural Produce
        Market Committee,
        Tadkalas, Tq. Purna,
        Dist. Parbhani.
        Through its Secretary/Administrator




::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2017                ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2017 00:55:27 :::
                                             2                           1068 wp 4044.17.odt



8)      Prayagbai w/o Amruta Bhalerao,
        Age: 39 years, Occ: Household & Agril.,
        R/o. Mahagaon, Post: Kalgaon,
        Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.

9)      Narhari s/o Sonba Shingare,
        Age: 45 years, Occ: Agril.,
        R/o. Dastapur, Post: Majlapur,
        Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.

10)     Santosh s/o Nagorao Lendale,
        Age: 45 years, Occ: Agril.,
        R/o. Mahagaon, Post: Kalgaon,
        Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.                  ...        Respondents

                                 ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Ghatol Patil Shahaji B. & U. M. Maske-patil
             AGP for Respondents: S.R. Yadav Lonikar
        Advocate for Respondents : S.B. Sontakke for R/8
                                 ...

                                                CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.

DATE : 29-03-2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Orders passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Parbhani

in three different appeals thereby allowing the appeals respectively

filed .by the respondent nos. 8 to 10 and consequently holding their

nominations valid for the election of Market Committee, Tadkalas,

District Parbhani are challenged by the petitioner in the present

petition.

3. The nominations of respondent nos. 8 to 10 were

rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that, the said

respondents did not submit declaration as is required under Rule 45

3 1068 wp 4044.17.odt

(2-A) of The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing

(Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 read with Section 13(1)

of The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development

and Regulation) Act, 1963. Respondent Nos. 8 to 10, admittedly,

belong to Other Backward Class. The respondent nos. 8 to 10 filed

appeals before the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies,

Parbhani, challenging the rejection of their nominations by the

Returning Officer. The learned District Deputy Registrar allowed the

appeal filed by the respondent nos. 8 to 10 and consequently held

their nominations valid for the election of the Tadkalas, Agricultural

Produce Market Committee, District Parbhani. Aggrieved by the

petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited

my attention to Section 13(1)(a)(i) of The Maharashtra Agricultural

Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 which

reads thus:

13. Constitution of Market Committees.

(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), every Market committee consists of the following [------]members,

(a) [fifteen agriculturists residing in the market area (being persons whose names appear in the voter's list for the concerned constituency and who are not less than twenty one years of age on the date specified, from time to time, by the Collector or the District Deputy Registrar, as the case may be, in this behalf), as specified below;-]

(i) eleven (of which, two shall be women,

4 1068 wp 4044.17.odt

one shall be a person belonging to Other Backward Classes and one shall be a person belonging to De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes) shall be elected by members of the Managing Committees of the Agricultural Credit Societies and Multi- purpose Co-operative Societies (within the meaning of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 and the rules made thereunder), functioning in the market area:

Provided that, where the market Committee is situated in Tribal areas, one person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes shall be elected in place of the election of the person belonging to the De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes as aforesaid; and...

5. The learned counsel, thereafter, invited my attention to

Rule 45 2-A of The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing

(Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 which reads thus:

[45 (2-A) In the case of reserved seat under the provisions of Section 13(1), a candidate shall not be deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless his nomination paper contains a declaration by him specifying the particulars of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe of which he is a member.]

6. Referring to the aforesaid provisions, the learned

counsel submitted that, it was mandatory for respondent nos. 8 to

10 to give a declaration specifying the particulars of the caste of

which they are the members. The learned counsel submitted that,

the Returning Officer had rightly rejected the nominations of

respondent nos. 8 to 10 for non-compliance of Rule 45 (2-A). The

5 1068 wp 4044.17.odt

learned counsel further submitted that, respondent no.4, however,

wrongly interpreted Rule 45 (2-A) and has set aside the order

passed by the Returning Officer on erroneous grounds. The learned

counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order passed by the

Respondent no.4.

7. The learned A.G.P. as well as the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent no.8 have supported the impugned

order.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced

by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. In Rule

45 (2-A), though, there is a reference of Section 13(1) of the Act of

1963, the mandate of giving a declaration is restricted to the

candidate belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe to specify

the particulars of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe of which he is

a member. Even in the nomination form declaration is expected to

be given only by the candidates belonging to scheduled caste or

scheduled tribe and rightly so since Rule 45 (2-A) mandates such

declaration only from the candidates belonging to scheduled caste

or scheduled tribe. Since no provision in the Act or Rules requires a

candidate belonging to Other Backward Class to give a declaration

as about his caste there was no reason for rejecting the

nominations of respondent nos. 8 to 10 by the Returning Officer.

The order passed by the Returning Officer was illegal and

6 1068 wp 4044.17.odt

unsustainable. The District Deputy Registrar has rightly set aside

the said order vide the impugned order. I see no reason to cause

interference in the order so passed. The writ petition being devoid

of any substance deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly

dismissed, however, without any order as to the costs. Rule

discharged.

(P.R. BORA) JUDGE

mub