(Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
primarily assails the appointment of respondent no. 3 as the "Returning
Officer", to hold elections of respondent no. 2-Maharashtra Medical
Council (for short "MMC"). The substantive reliefs as prayed for in the
"(a) call for the relevant records and proceeding from the office of
the Respondents and after going into the legality of the same, direct
the Maharashtra Medical Council to declare the voters' list afresh
and amend/alter further steps accordingly, including filling up
nomination, withdrawal of the same and the date of election and for
that purpose issue writ and/or order.
13.WP2997_2025.doc
(b) direct the Respondent State to forthwith appoint unbiased
returning officer as stipulated under Rule 6 of the MMC Rules
1967.
(c) direct the Respondent State of Maharashtra to forthwith
appoint the Returning Officer to monitor election of Maharashtra
Medical Council with further direction to declare the voter list in
accordance with Rule 5."
2. The relevant facts are : The petitioner claims to be a medical
practitioner by profession enrolled with respondent no. 2-MMC. He is a
voter in the ensuing elections of the MMC to be held on 3 April 2025.
3. The petitioner contends that the appointment of respondent no. 3
as a Returning Officer is illegal, being contrary to the provisions of Rule 6
of the Maharashtra Medical Council (1 st Amendment) Rules, 2002 (for
short "Rules"). He also contends that the actions taken by respondent
no.3 of publication of the voters list, hence, is required to be held to be
illegal.
4. It is the petitioner's case that MMC is a statutory body established
under Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 which exercises authority
and powers under the MMC Act as also under the National Medical
Commission Act, 2019. The powers are in the nature of disciplinary
procedures on professional misconduct against the doctors practicing
Modern Scientific Medicine, who are enrolled with MMC. He further
contends that MMC comprises of 18 members, out of which, 9 members
13.WP2997_2025.doc
are to be elected amongst the registered medical practitioners and out of
the remaining 9 members, 4 members are to be nominated by the State
from amongst the registered medical practitioners having MBBS degree
and 1 member who is not medical practitioner. That out of the remaining
members, 1 member is to be nominated from the College of Physician &
Surgeons, 1 member from Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, and
2 Directors, namely, one Director of Medical Education and another
director of Public Health Services of State of Maharashtra.
5. The petitioner has stated that the election of MMC is to be held
every 5 years, and the period of 5 years comes to an end from the date of
notification of establishing council. It is stated that last election of the
MMC was held for 9 posts on 18 December, 2016. In or about August
2017, the Council was accordingly constituted after the appointment of
the members nominated by the State of Maharashtra. It is contended that
the term of MMC has come to an end on or about August 2022 and since
then, an Administrator was appointed to look after the day-to-day affairs
of the MMC.
6. The petitioner contends that there are 2 lakhs doctors who are
enrolled with MMC and who have the right to vote in the elections of
MMC. It is stated that on the date of voting, the voters are required to cast
their votes by secret ballot by approaching the voting centers. In every
13.WP2997_2025.doc
district, there is a voting center at the district place and the Collector is
authorized to nominate and/or arrange the staff under him for voting at
the MMC elections.
7. The petitioner has contended that with a view to avoid allegations
of favoritism and to conduct the election in a fair and transparent manner,
a provision is made under the said Rules to appoint Returning Officer,
who is not connected with the office of Council. It is the petitioner's case
that Rule 6 of the said Rules is the relevant Rule pertaining to the
appointment of Returning Officer, which provides a person to be
appointed as a Returning Officer by State Government, should not be
below the rank of an Under Secretary to the Government, which would
imply that the person being appointed as Returning Officer should
necessarily be holding a post equivalent to the post of Under Secretary
and/or that no person who is below the rank of Under Secretary should be
appointed.
8. The petitioner has contended that respondent no. 3 came to be
appointed by the State Government vide notification dated 31 October,
2023 and by an order of even date, respondent no. 3 was also appointed as
Registrar of MMC. The petitioner's contention is that many persons
including former MMC members protested against the appointment of
respondent no. 3 as Returning Officer. The petitioner also protested
13.WP2997_2025.doc
against the appointment of respondent no. 3 by approaching the then
Secretary, Medical Education Department. It is the petitioner's case that
although respondent no. 3 was appointed as Returning Officer on 31
October, 2023, she has not taken any steps for holding the elections of
MMC and that she has tried to delay the same.
9. The petitioner has raised several contentions against respondent no.
3 including that respondent no. 3 is creating a situation which would lead
to irregularities in the process of elections. It is alleged that on 15 January,
2025, respondent no. 3 declared the voters' list, and subsequent thereto,
the election programme was declared on 17 January, 2025 which was due
to the interference of this Court in the proceedings of Criminal Writ
Petition No. 1569 of 2022. The petitioner has also raised concerns on the
names which are included in the voters' list which, according to the
petitioner, would result in excluding the names of about 70,000 doctors.
10. The primary contention of the petitioner is that when respondent
no. 3 was appointed as the Registrar of MMC, she could not have been
appointed as Returning Officer, this for two fold reasons, firstly, that she
cannot be held to satisfy the eligibility stipulated by Rule 6 of the said
Rules namely that she cannot be considered to be an officer now below the
rank of an 'Under Secretary to Government'; and secondly, for the reason
that the duties she discharged in her administrative capacity as an In-
13.WP2997_2025.doc
charge Registrar, would bring about a conflict of interest, if she works as a
Returning Officer. It appears that however no basis / material is available
in the petition on the second issue. It is on the basis of such case, the
petitioner is before the Court praying for the reliefs as noted by us
hereinabove.
11. A reply affidavit is filed on behalf of the State Government of Dr.
Tushar Pitambar Pawar, Deputy Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, disputing the contentions as urged on
behalf of the petitioner, in opposing the reliefs as prayed for. The reply
contends that as the term of the office of members of the MMC expired on
7 August 2022, consequent thereto, the State Government appointed Dr.
Pallavi Saple, Dean, Grant Government Medical College and Sir J.J.
Group of Hospital, Mumbai, as an Administrator vide Government
Notification dated 10 October 2022 for a period of one year or until new
Council is constituted, whichever is earlier, to discharge all the powers and
duties of the Council. It is stated that after the expiry of term of Dr. Pallavi
Saple, the Government appointed Dr. Dilip Mhaisekar, Director,
Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Mumbai, as an
Administrator vide Government Notification dated 30 October 2023. It is
stated that in the same notification as per Rule 6 of the said Rules, the
State Government appointed respondent No.3 - Registrar, Maharashtra
13.WP2997_2025.doc
State Dental Council as the Returning Officer to conduct the elections of
the MMC in accordance with the provisions prescribed in the Maharashtra
Medical Council Rules, 1967. It is stated that after the appointment of
Dr. Dilip Mhaisekar, Dr. Vinky Rughwani, former member of the said
Council was appointed as an Administrator vide Government Notification
dated 22 February 2024 and an extension was given to him for a period of
one year or until a new Council is duly constituted through elections,
whichever occurred earlier, which was by Government Notification dated
21 February 2025.
12. The affidavit of the State Government further contends that under
Section 14 of the MMC Act, additional charge of Registrar of MMC was
given to the Assistant Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences. However, due to some administrative reasons Smt. Shilpa Parab,
Registrar, Maharashtra State Dental Council was given additional charge
of Registrar of MMC vide Government Order dated 30 October 2023. It
is stated that her additional charge had come to an end vide Government
Order dated 14 March 2024 as the Government had given such additional
charge to Dr. Ibrahim Ansari, Associate Professor, B.J. Government
Medical College, Pune. It is stated that at present Dr. Rakesh Waghmare,
Associate Professor, Health Unit, Palghar (Grant Government Medical
College, Mumbai) is working as Registrar, MMC as an additional charge
vide Government Order dated 27 January 2025.
13.WP2997_2025.doc
13. On the aforesaid statements it is categorically contended that
respondent No.3 is not working as Registrar of Maharashtra Medical
Council, as her charge has come to an end vide Government Order dated
14 March 2024, and she is not in any manner involved in the
administration of respondent No.2. It is further stated that although she
was appointed as Returning Officer of the MMC as well as Registrar on
the same date, she did not prepare electoral roll nor notified the election
programme of the MMC during her tenure of about five months as
Incharge Registrar.
14. Insofar as the legal position under the Rule is concerned, it is stated
that the State Government has power to appoint Returning Officer who is
a person not below the rank of Under Secretary to the Government. It is
stated that the appointment of Registrar of Maharashtra Dental Council
i.e. respondent No.3, as a Returning Officer vide Government
Notification dated 30 October 2023 was just and proper, and as per Rule
6 of the 1967 Rules. It is stated that the Registrar of the Maharashtra State
Dental Council is of the rank of the post of Under Secretary to the
Government. It is stated that the pay scale of the Registrar, Maharashtra
State Dental Council is approved by the Government at Rs.15600-39100
and pay band Rs.6600/- as per sub section (1)(d) of Section 28 of the
Dentists Act,1948 vide Government letter dated 29 February 2012 which
is equivalent to that of the post of Under Secretary to Government as per
13.WP2997_2025.doc
the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,2019. It is stated that
Returning Officer's (Respondent No.3) pay scale and the pay scale of the
Registrar, Maharashtra State Dental Council, is at par in pay matrix
corresponding to pay band and grade pay or scale shown at Serial No.4 i.e.
Pay Level in Revised Pay Matrix S-23 : 67700-208700 which is
equivalent to the Under Secretary to the Government. A copy of the
Government Notification dated 30 January 2019 is annexed to the reply
affidavit.
"(Official Translation of a photocopy of MARKED PORTION
from GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION, printed in Marathi).
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, Date 30th January, 2019.
NOTIFICATION
Constitution of India :
No. R.O.P.-2019/M. No.1/Service - 9 :
In exercise of the powers conferred by the Proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, Hon'ble Governor of
Maharahstra is hereby pleased to make the following rules,
namely:-
1) Short Title and Commencement :
(1) These Rules shall be called as the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2019.
(2) The Rules shall be deemed to have come into force with effect
from the date 01st January, 2016.
2) Categories of the Government Servants to whom these Rules
shall become applicable:
(1) Save as otherwise, provided by or under these Rules, these
Rules shall apply to all persons who are under the Rule making
control of the Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra.
(2) These Rules shall not apply to -
(a) Government Servants not in the whole time
employment;
(b) Government Servants on consolidated rates of pay;
----
Accompaniment to the Government Notification, Finance Department No.RPS
2019/CR-01/SEVA-9 Dated 30th Jan. 2019
13.WP2997_2025.doc
SCHEDULE
SEE RULE 3(14)
Mantralaya Department (Proper)
(Amount in Rs.)
Sr. No Designation Existing Pay Structure Pay level in
Revised Pay Matrix
Pay Bank Grad
e Pay
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(2) Posts common to all Mantralaya Departments (General Administration Department)
Gazetted
1 (a) Additional Chief Secretary Cadre Post
(b) Principal Secretary Cadre Post
(c) Secretary Cadre Post
2 Joint Secretary 37400-67000 8700 S-27: 118500- 214100
3 Deputy Secretary 15600 - 39100 7600 S-25 : 78800- 209200
4 Under Secretary 15600 - 39100 6600 S-23 : 67700- 208700
5 Senior Personal Assistant 15600 - 39100 6600 S-23 : 67700- 208700
6 Stenographer (Selection Grade) 9300 - 34800 4600 S-16 : 44900 - 142400
7 Section Officer (i) 9300-34800 4800 S-17 : 47600 - 151100
(ii)15600-39100 5400 S-20 : 56100 - 177500
(After 4 years of regular service)
15. It is further contended that now respondent No.3 being Registrar of
Maharashtra State Dental Council, is not discharging functions as the
Registrar of the MMC, and therefore, she is in no manner whatsoever
involved with the functioning of the MMC. It is next contended that it is
imperative that the elections of the MMC are held as scheduled, being the
only Council in the State that has regulatory authority over the medical
practitioners. It is stated that accordingly, the Returning Officer has
published an Election Programme vide Notification dated 17 January
13.WP2997_2025.doc
2025, under which the nomination procedure has been completed and 41
candidates are contesting the elections of Maharashtra Medical Council-
2025. A copy of such notification dated 4 March 2025 is annexed to the
reply afidavit. It is stated that the voting and the elections shall be by secret
ballot. The voting of this election is being held in each District
Headquarter under the supervision of the District Collector on Thursday,
3 April 2025 during 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
16. There is a reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 MMC
of Dr. Rakesh Balaji Waghmare, opposing the petition. At the outset it is
contended that the contentions as urged by the petitioner are vague, the
petition is being filed without collecting due information and without
exercising available remedy, without stating correct facts and also
applicability of correct position in law. It is contended that the voters list
contains the names of the registered practitioners who have valid
registrations and the same is to be considered under the provisions of
Section 16 and Section 23 of the MMC Act as the voters list is prepared as
per the Rules having the names of all medical practitioners who are duly
registered with the MMC and the name of the medical practitioners who
have valid registrations are entered in the voters list/ electoral roll, and
there is no error while publishing the electoral roll. It is contended that the
Returning Officer has followed the provisions of the MMC Act and Rules
thereunder in taking all such actions in relation to the election. It is
13.WP2997_2025.doc
contended that the intention of the petitioner is malicious that is to stay
the elections for illegal motives and the allegations are made without
verification of proper records and without gathering due information. It is
stated that respondent No.2 have published electoral roll /voters list after
taking into considerations all necessary aspects as also the MMC has done
an in-depth observation as well as verification while publishing electoral
roll and the same ought not to be interfered.
17. Respondent No.3 has also filed a reply affidavit denying the
allegations as made against her by the petitioner contending that she has
followed all Rules and Regulations in commencing the election process
which has already been set into motion. Her reply affidavit has set out the
details in regard to stages, scrutiny which was completed by her in regard
to the nomination papers which were received from the candidates. She
has stated that 6 nomination forms were rejected and therefore, 51
nomination forms were remained with the Returning Officer. She has
stated that she has completed the scrutiny procedure as per the MMC
Rules on 27 February 2025. She has also stated that on 3 March 2025 as
per the election programme and as permissible under Rule 13 of the
MMC Act, 10 candidates withdrew their nominations and final list of 41
contesting candidates remained with the Returning officer. She has also
stated that on 4 March 2025, under her signature a final list of contesting
candidates was published on the web site of the MMC. She has dealt with
13.WP2997_2025.doc
the allegations which are made by the petitioner to contend that they are
wholly untenable and she has discharged official duty in accordance with
law.
18. It is on such conspectus we have heard learned Counsel for the
parties. Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for the petitioner has limited
submissions. His primary contention is on the eligibility of respondent
No.3 to appoint as a Returning Officer in the context of the relevant rule
namely Rule 6 of the 1967 Rules as noted by us hereinabove. The
contention is based on the premise that being a Registrar of the
Maharashtra Dental Council, respondent No.3 cannot be treated to have
eligibility of being an an officer not below the rank of 'Under Secretary to
the Government of Maharashtra', merely on the basis of the pay scale. It is
therefore, his contention that per se the appointment of respondent No.3
was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Rule 6 of the 1967 Rules. Mr.
Thorat has also urged contention on the merits of the election programme
which has been set into motion to which we have made a detail reference
hereinabove, even by referring to Rule 5 which pertains to preparation of
electoral roll.
19. Ms. S. A. Prabhune, learned AGP has opposed the petition relying
on the affidavit in reply as filed by the State. She contends that the actions
of the State Government in appointing respondent No.3 vide notification
13.WP2997_2025.doc
dated 30 October 2023 as impugned, is legal and valid and that
considering the pay scale which respondent No.3 receives as a Registrar,
Maharashtra State Dental Council, therefore, she would qualify to be a
person holding a post not below the rank "Under Secretary" as is
equivalent to the post "Under Secretary". She has drawn our attention to
the notification as annexed to the reply affidavit and the averments made
in the reply affidavit.
20. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 - MMC as also respondent
No.3 has supported the case of the State Government in opposing the
petition referring to their respective reply affidavits which we have
discussed in the forgoing paragraphs.
ANALYSIS
21. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused
the record at the outset we would consider whether respondent No.3 was
eligible to be appointed as a Returning Officer under Rule 6 of the 1967
Rules. In considering this issue at the outset it is imperative to note the
provisions of Rule 6 of the 1967 Rules, which reads thus:
"6. Returning Officer. - The State Government shall appoint a
person, not below the rank of Under Secretry to Government to be
the Returning Officer. The staff of the Council's office shall assist the
Returning Officer for conducting elections smoothly. The Returning
Officer shall issue such necessary instructions to all Presiding
Officers, Polling Officers and other staff appointed by District
Collector for conducting election and counting of votes as required to
maintain complete secrecy in the process."
13.WP2997_2025.doc
22. On a plain reading of the aforesaid rule, the requirement for a
person to be appointed as a Returning Officer is that a person not below
the rank of 'Under Secretary to Government' can be appointed as a
Returning Officer. The Rule when it uses the expression "not below the
rank", as to what would be the purport of such expression in the context of
of an expression a person holding "a rank" would be required to be
considered. Article 311 of the Constitution uses the word "rank" when it
provides for dismissal, removal or reduction in "rank" of persons
employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. As to what is the
meaning of the term 'rank' fell for consideration of the Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court in the case of The High Court, Calcutta vs. Amal
Kumar Roy & Ors.1 wherein the Supreme Court was directly considering
the decree of the City Civil Court at Calcutta decreeing the plaintiff's suit.
In the peculiar facts of the case, the said decision of the Civil Court could
not be appealed before the High Court of Calcutta, as the sitting Judges of
the said Court or the appellants were the principal contesting defendants
in the Trial Court and hence, as observed by the Supreme Court, as a
matter of propriety, the High Court could not have heard the appeal. The
plaintiff was functioning as an Additional District Judge and Sessions
Judge on the date of the suit and was a member of the West Bengal Civil
Services (Judicial). The grievance of the plaintiff was that in his
1 AIR 1962 SC 1704
13.WP2997_2025.doc
appointment as a subordinate Judge, several other persons were appointed,
one after another in succession, in the order which their names were
appearing in a civil list, and being aggrieved he instituted a suit in question
against the State of West Bengal as a principal defendant and 8 munsifs
who were appointed as subordinate Judges in preference to the plaintiff. It
is in such context the Supreme Court was considering the plaintiff's
arguments that he was reduced in rank by 8 in the list of subordinate
Judges and in law it amounted to reduction in rank within the meaning of
Article 113 of the Constitution. It is in such context the Supreme Court
was considering as to what is meaning of word "rank". The dictionary
meaning the word was pressed into service which described that "rank"
signifies "relative position or status or place, according to Oxford English
Dictionary. It was held that the word "rank" can be and has been used in
different senses in different contexts. In the context of the expression
"rank" in Article. 311(2) it was held that it has reference to a person's
classification and not his particular place in the same cadre in the hierarchy
of the service to which he belongs.
23. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court was followed by the
Supreme Court in Shitla Sahai Srivastava vs. General Manager, North
Eastern Railway2 in which the Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid
principle that the word rank can be and has been used in different senses
2 AIR 1966 SC 1197
13.WP2997_2025.doc
in different contexts, and that the expression "rank" in Article 311(2) has
reference to a person's classification and not his particular place in the
same cadre in the hierarchy of the service to which he belongs. In such
context the Supreme Court held thus:-
"This decision has established the following principle, viz., the
expression 'rank' in Article 311 (2) has reference to a person's
classification and not his particular place in the same cadre in the
hierarchy of the service of which he belongs and, therefore, losing
some places in the seniority list is not tantamount to reduction in
rank within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution."
24. In N. C. Dalwadi Vs. State of Gujrat3, the Supreme Court held that
the word used in the rule 'rank' and not 'substantive rank', hence, there
was no reason why it should not be understood according to its ordinary
sense as meaning grade or status.
25. Thus, applying the aforesaid principles of law to Rule 6 in question,
namely that the word "rank" can be and/or is used in different senses and
in different contexts, as also it is relatable to a person's classification and
not his particular place in the same cadre in the hierarchy of the service to
which he may belong, as also the word "rank" is required to be understood
according to its ordinary sense as meaning grade or status, we are of the
clear opinion that considering the pay scale of respondent No.3 as set out
in paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit filed by the State Government, the
contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no.3
3 (1987) 3 SCC 611
13.WP2997_2025.doc
cannot be considered to be a person below the rank of 'Under Secretary to
Government' so as to be appointed as a Returning Officer, needs to be
rejected. The contention in paragraph (3) of the reply affidavit of the State
Government reads thus:
"3. With reference to Para No.2 of the Hon'ble High Court
order dated 05.03.2025, I say that The State Government has
power to appoint Returning Officer a person, not below the rank
of Under Secretary to Government. Appointment of Registrar of
Maharashtra Dental Council i.e. Smt. Shilpa Parab, as Returning
Officer vide Government Notification dated 30.10.2023 is just
and proper as per rule 6 of Maharashtra Medical Council Rules,
1967. The Registrar of the Maharashtra State Dental Council is of
the rank of the post of Under Secretary to Government. The pay
scale of the Registrar, Maharashtra State Dental Council is
approved by the Government as Rs.15600-39100 and pay band
Rs.6600 as per sub section (1)(d) of section 28 of Dentists Act,
1948 vide Government letter dated 29.02.2012 which is
equivalent to Under Secretary to Government as per Maharashtra
Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2019. Hereto annexed and
marked Exhibit- "F" is the copy of the Government letter dated
29.02.2012. Returning Officer i.e. Registrar, Maharashtra State
Dental Council Smt. Shilpa Parab's applicable level in pay matrix
corresponding to pay band and grade pay or Scale shown at Serial
no. 4 i.e. is Pay Level in Revised Pay Matrix S-23: 67700-208700
which equivalent to the Under Secretary to Government. Hereto
annexed and marked Exhibit-"G" is the copy of the
Accompaniment of the Government Notification, Finance
Department dated 30.01.2019."
26. As noted above the State Government has also annexed a
notification dated 30 January 2019 whereby the pay scale of the Under
Secretary is shown to be 15600-39100 and the pay bank of Rs.6600 which
is stated to be as per sub-section (1)(d) of Section 28 of the Dentist
Act,1948 and in terms of the Government Letter dated 29 February 2012
the post is equivalent to "Under Secretary to Government of Maharashtra"
13.WP2997_2025.doc
as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2019. Hence,
once respondent no.3's applicable level in pay matrix corresponding to the
pay band and grade pay was equivalent to "Under Secretary to
Government", it would be required to be held that she was eligible to be
appointed as Returning Officer being a person not below the rank of
Under Secretary, as per Rule 6 of 1967 Rules.
27. Insofar as the other allegations as made by the petitioner are
concerned, we find substance in the contentions as urged on behalf of the
respondents that the same are vague allegations, which are not supported
by any substantive material. In any event all such issues pertain to the
election process which is already set into motion which is scheduled to be
held on 3 April 2025, to which we have made a detail reference
hereinabove. We cannot interfere in the process of election which is
already set into motion. The principle in this regard are well settled.
28. Before parting, we also cannot be oblivious to the fact that the
appointment of respondent No.3 as a Returning Officer was made vide a
notification dated 30 October 2023. As clearly stated in the reply affidavit,
although she was appointed as Incharge Registrar for a limited period of
about five months from 30 October 2023 as her additional charge had
come to an end on 14 March 2024, as per the Government Order dated
14 March 2024, and thereafter, the charge was handed over to Dr. Ibrahim
13.WP2997_2025.doc
Ansari and presently Dr. Rakesh Waghmare, Associate Professor, Health
Unit, Palghar (Grant Government Medical College, Mumbai) is working
as Registrar of MMC under Government Order dated 27 January 2025,
the present petition is filed on 10 February 2025. There is no explanation
as to why the petitioner thought it appropriate to assail the 30 October
2023 appointment of respondent No.3 in February 2025. Be that as it
may, it is clear that respondent No.3 is not working as Registrar of
respondent No.2 MMC. There is nothing on record that she in any
manner involved in administration of the MMC. She has also not prepared
electoral roll or notified election programme during her tenure of five
months as Incharge Registrar. In this view of the matter, we do not accept
the allegations as made by the petitioner against respondent No.3 being in
any manner connected with the administration of respondent No.2 MMC
so as to not being an independent Returning Officer for conducting fair
elections.
29. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, in our opinion, the petition
is misconceived. It is accordingly, rejected. No costs.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]
