1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By the present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge order dated 25.4.2008, made by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, confirming order dated 17.3.2008, made by the Additional Collector, Amravati, who held that the election of the petitioners to the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch respectively was illegal and respondent Nos.4 and 5 were declared elected in the irrespective places.

3. The election to the post of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of village panchayat Shingori was scheduled to be held on 3.12.2007 and the nomination forms were required to be submitted by respective candidates between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on that day. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted their respective nomination forms for the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch at 11:15 a.m., while the petitioners submitted their nomination forms at 1:40 p.m.. During scrutiny, objection was raised by respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the nomination forms of the petitioners on the ground that they were filed beyond the time limit prescribed. The Election Officer overruled the objection and accepted the nomination forms of the petitioners in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Krishna Wakekar...Versus...Chief Exe. Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, reported in 1965 Mh.L.J. Note-15. The election was thereafter held in which the petitioners were declared elected. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 therefore, filed election dispute under Section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before the Additional Collector, Amravati, who held that the election officer had wrongly interpreted the judgment of this Court and thus had wrongly accepted the nomination forms of the petitioners. He, therefore, accepted election dispute and set aside the election of the petitioners to the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. He further went ahead and declared that respondent Nos.4 and 5 were declared elected to the said posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. The petitioners filed appeal under Section 33 (5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The appellate authority confirmed the findings recorded by the Additional Collector and dismissed the appeal. This Court had issued notice for final disposal of this petition and also granted interim relief to the petitioners.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that Rule 9 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 clearly provides that no nomination form shall be rejected on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. According to him, the provision regarding time fixed for receiving nomination forms is only directory and not mandatory and therefore, the acceptance of nomination forms even beyond the prescribed time cannot be said to be illegal act. In support of his submissions he relied on two decisions of this Court reported in 1963 Mh.L.J. Note 84 and 1965 Mh.L.J. Note 15. He further argued that the provisions of Section 33 (5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act merely empower the Additional Collector to decide the validity of election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch and nothing more than that and therefore, the order made by the Additional Collector, declaring respondent Nos.4 and 5 elected in place of the petitioners is illegal. He relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Gawaji Alias Gawaja Sawleram Sarode...Versus...State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 1992 Mh.L.J. 294.

5. Per contra, Advocate Shri Kothale for respondent Nos.4 and 5 vehemently opposed the writ petition and argued that acceptance of nomination forms beyond prescribed time is a defect of substantial character and admittedly the petitioners had filed their nomination forms at 1:40 p.m. i.e. late by one hour and forty minutes as the outer limit was 12:00 p.m. He further argued that the orders made by the authorities below were correct, legal and proper in accordance with the Rules and th