J. N. PATEL, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. This matter arises from a reference made by a two Judge Bench of this court in the case of Rajkumar s/o Laxmanprasad Kesarwani vs. Returning officer and Tahsildar, Tirora and other respondents (Writ Petition No. 2701/04) for determination of the following question by a Larger Bench :- "whether it is necessary for a candidate contesting election from the constituency as provided under section 13 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, to be a voter from that Constituency, apart from he being an agriculturist?"

( 2 ) THE controversy has arisen in the context of the interpretation of the eligibility of a person to be a candidate for contesting an election from the constituency prescribed under section 13 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Maharashtra agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and the Rules governing the said elections as provided under maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules" ).

( 3 ) THE petitioner Rajkumar s/o Laxmanprasad Kesarwani challenged the order dated 24-6-2005 passed by respondent No. 3 the Deputy Collector (Election), Gondia, District Gondia in the appeal which was presented to the collector under Rule 51 of the said Rules under which the decision of the election Officer came to be upheld rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner from the constituency under section 13 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the said Act, i. e. Seva Sahakari Society and sought declaration that the petitioner being qualified as an agriculturist under section 2 (1) (b) of the said Act, rejection of his nomination form from the constituency under section 13 (1) (a) (i) of the said Act by the respondent is illegal and, therefore, the same should be quashed and set aside.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is eligible to contest the said election from the aforesaid constituency being an agriculturist within the meaning of section 2 (1) (b) of the said Act and further he fulfils all the requirements prescribed by the Rules to contest the said election from the said constituency.

( 5 ) WE are informed at the Bar that a group of petitions raising an identical issue came to be dealt by Division Bench of this Court which disposed of the said petitions by a common judgment and order dated 26-8-2004 wherein it was held that to be eligible to contest election to the Market Committee from the constituency as provided under section 13 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) a person has to be (1) a member of the Managing Committee of the Agricultural Credit Societies and multipurpose Co-operative Societies within the meaning of the said Act and functioning in the market area or (2) he should be a member of the Village panchayats functioning therein and the Division Bench which disposed of this petition arrived at such a finding after discussing the scheme of election as provided under the said Act and Rules by particularly placing emphasis on section 13 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) read with Rules 35, 36, 37, along with Rules 44 and 45 and the requirements mentioned in Form No. 9 which is provided by Rule 44 of the said Rules. It, therefore, held that "the Returning Officer has rejected the nomination form of the petitioners candidature on the ground that the required information as expected to be furnished in Form No. 9 was not furnished, such as, name of the constituency and the serial number of the candidate in a given voters list. We do not find that the Returning Officer has committed any error in insisting upon compliance with the requirement of Form 9. Rights under the election law are creature of statute and there cannot be any other right, such as, right under common law or any other law. If the law dealing with election mandates compliance of the particular condition, the same has to be complied with. In t