1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing.

4. Considering that all the issues involved are identical and respondent No.4 in these four petitions, as well as the petitioner, are identically placed, these petitions have been taken up together for hearing.

5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.8.2018, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in the Appeals filed by each of these fourth respondents. By the impugned judgment, the order of the District Collector, dated 26.7.2018, allowing the application filed by the petitioner and disqualifying the fourth respondent under Section 16(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 have been quashed and set aside.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates and the learned AGP on behalf of the respective sides, their submissions can be summarized as under:

(a) The elections were held on 13.12.2017 and the results were declared on 14.12.2017.

(b) The fourth respondent in each of these cases was declared elected after the counting of votes on 14.12.2017.

(c) A period of 30 days after the declaration of the result is available for the elected candidates to submit their accounts of election expenses.

(d) The period of 30 days would, therefore, expire on 13.1.2018, within which, the elected representatives will have to deposit their accounts of elections expenses as per the Rules.

(e) Though the petitioner is not a valid voter and is not included in the list of the voters for the Municipal Council, Kinwat district Nanded, he claims to have a right to lodge a protest or a complaint before the District Collector under Section 16 (1) of the Act for making out a case of disqualification as against the fourth respondent.

(f) These fourth respondents have tendered their accounts on 13.1.2018 and the said submissions have been accepted by the concerned authority, though 13.1.2018 was a nonworking second Saturday and hence a holiday.

(g) The petitioner contends that the Collector had rightly concluded that the polling in the elections was held on 13.12.2017 and hence, the 30 days would expire on 12.1.2018. The petitioner further submits that the delay of one year is fatal and the District Collector had rightly disqualified the elected representatives.

(h) There is no dispute that the counting of votes took place on 14.12.2017 and the result of the election was declared thereafter on the same date.

(i) The respondents contend that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to cause his intervention before the Divisional Commissioner in the appeal proceedings as he is not concerned with the elections, is unconnected with the said election and is not a valid voter, who could contest the elections or participate in the voting to such elections.

(j) The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Suvarna Prakash Patil Vs. Anil Hindurao Powar and others [2004 (1) Mah.L.J. 106].

(k) The petitioner contends that the Divisional Commissioner did not have the authority to entertain the appeal in view of Articles 243-K (4), 243-ZA and 243-V(2) of the Constitution of India.

(l) The petitioner further submits that when Section 44(4) of the Municipalities Act mandates that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector will approach the State Government, the fourth respondents have wrongly approached the Divisional Commissioner.

(m) The fourth respondents have relied upon Section 10-A to contend that the State Election Commissioner can issue special or general orders and can delegate any of his powers and functions to any officer of the Commission or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Deputy Collector or the Chief Officer of a Council.

(n) They further rely upon the order issued by the State Election Commission dated 10.8.2015, by which, the power to decide the iss