Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Navandar Nandlal Hiralal, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his nomination form for the election to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Gangapur, from the traders constituency. The election programme was published on 27.03.2023, with the last date for submission of nomination forms being 03.04.2023. The petitioner submitted his nomination on 03.04.2023. The respondent no. 3, Sheikh Jafar Sheikh Ismail, raised objections on the ground that the petitioner's proposer, Mahesh Navandar, was disqualified to be a proposer under an order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the District Deputy Registrar under Section 45(2A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination on 05.04.2023 on this ground. The petitioner appealed to the District Election Officer (APMC)/District Deputy Registrar, who dismissed the appeal on 17.04.2023. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The Court considered the issue of whether the disqualification under Section 45(2A) applies to proposers in a traders constituency. The Court noted that Section 45(2A) deals with disqualification of members of the Market Committee and not proposers. The Court held that the rejection was erroneous and set aside both the orders. The Court directed the Returning Officer to accept the nomination of the petitioner and proceed with the election in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Nomination Rejection - Proposer Disqualification - Section 45(2A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - The petitioner's nomination for election to APMC from traders constituency was rejected on the ground that his proposer was disqualified under Section 45(2A) of the 1963 Act. The Court held that the disqualification under Section 45(2A) applies only to members of the Market Committee and not to proposers in a traders constituency. The rejection was set aside and the Returning Officer was directed to accept the nomination and proceed with the election. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's nomination form on the ground that his proposer was disqualified under Section 45(2A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 is valid.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 05.04.2023 passed by the Returning Officer and the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the District Election Officer are quashed and set aside. The Returning Officer is directed to accept the nomination of the petitioner and proceed with the election in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Election law
- Nomination rejection
- Proposer disqualification
- Section 45(2A) Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1963
- Traders constituency
- Agricultural Produce Market Committee
