The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing [Regulation] Rules, 1967, and the allowance for multiple nominations in different categories, in line with the spirit of the law.

1. On 20th February, 2008, the present petition was listed for admission-hearing, when, on hearing the petitioner's Advocate and learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, this Court had passed interim order with liberty to the respondents to apply. Accordingly, respondent no.4 has appeared and filed application for vacation of interim order.

2. Parties agree that question involved pertains to interpretation of rules and effect of certain judgments, and, therefore, the petition can be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission-hearing itself. Hence Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent.

F A C T S

3. The subject-matter of this petition pertains to elections to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Malkapur. The election programme was published. The petitioner and the respondent no.4 were amongst the contesting candidates from the Seva Sahakari Sanstha category within the class - Agriculturists.

4. Petitioner's nomination paper has been rejected relying upon the prohibitory clause contained in Sub-rule [2] of Rule 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing [Regulation] Rules, 1967. Sub-rule [2] of Rule 45 of the said Rules reads as follows:-

“45. .....

[1] .....

[1-A] ....

[2] Any person who is not subject to any disqualification as a voter under these rules and whose name is entered in the list of voters for the constituency for which the candidate is nominated may subscribe as proposer or seconder. He shall not subscribe as proposer more than one nomination paper.”

5. The petitioner herein, who was aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal under Rule 51 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing [Regulation] Rules, 1967. The appeal has been rejected. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the said orders.

6. Petitioner is seeking the relief, namely that by quashing the decision of the Returning Officer and Appellate Forum and that the petitioner be permitted to participate in the election.

7. As per the Election Programme, the schedule prescribed is as follows:- [a] 8-2-2008 .... Date of Scrutiny.

[b] 11-2-2008 .... Date of publication of list of validly nominated candidates.

[c] 18-2-2008 .... Dates fixed for filing appeal, if any.

[d] Date for withdrawal of nomination: 13-2-2008 .... when appeal is not preferred. 21-2-2008 .... When appeal is preferred.

[e] 22-2-2008 .... Date of publication of final list of candidates contesting election.

[f] 9-3-2008 .... Date of polling.

[g] 11-3-2008 .... Date of counting.

As to jurisdiction of a Single Judge to try this petition:

8. At the outset, learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.G. Bhangde raised a point as to jurisdiction of a Single Judge to hear and decide present petition. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the text of Clause [4] of Rule 18 of Chapter-XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules [hereinafter referred to, for brevity, as “Rules”], in contrast with the text of Clause [3] thereof.

9. According to learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.G. Bhangde, admittedly, the order impugned is passed in appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction is a matter governed by Clause [4] of Rule 18. Original orders are, on the other hand, governed by Clause [3] of Rule 18. It is urged that when Clause [3] was amended and the words “or by any Quasi Judicial Authority” were added in it, these words were not added in Clause [4]. According to learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhangde, this omission is a conscious omission, and failure to incorporate these words in Clause [4] would essentially exclude the decision or order rendered in exercise of appellate powers from the powers and the jurisdiction of a Single Judge of this Court.

10. This submission is opposed by learned Advocate Mr. P.C. Madkholkar by urging that import and intention underlying Rule 18 of Chapter-XVII of Rules will have to be seen. It is then urged that if