The judgment establishes the principle that a reasonable period of disqualification must be read into rules governing disqualification for contesting elections, and emphasizes the need to protect fundamental rights and prevent misuse of political power.

T.V. NALAWADE, J.

1. The petition is filed to challenge the order made by the State Government, dated 8.5.2013, by which it is declared that respondent No.6 Baliram Sonawane was qualified to remain on the post of Chairman of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jalgaon. This respondent was elected as a Member of the A.P.M.C. and then he had become Chairman. Present petitioner had filed complaint dated 21.9.2012 before respondent No.4 District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies for declaring that present respondent No.6 was disqualified in view of provisions of Rule 41(1)(a) of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rules (hereinafter referred to as the A.P.M.C. Rules for short), but during the pendency of that proceedings, application was moved to the Hon'ble Minister by respondent No.6 and aforesaid order came to be passed. Both sides are heard. Learned A.G.P. supported the impugned order.

2. It is not disputed that, in the year 1970 respondent No.6 was convicted for offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case bearing No.54/1970, which was pending in the Sessions Court, Jalgaon. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and this decision was challenged in High Court by respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 has undergone the sentence and he was kept in jail for 20 years. This period came to end in the year 1990 and he contested the election to A.P.M.C. in the year 2007 i.e. after about 17 years of completion of the period of sentence.

3. Rule 41 of the A.P.M.C. Rules, 1966 is as under : -

"41. Disqualifications of membership :-

(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, or for being, a member of a Market Committee -

(a) If he has been convicted by a Court in India of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding six months unless such disqualification has been removed by an order by the State Government;

(b) if he has not attained the age of 21;

(c) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent Court;

(d) if he is an un-discharged insolvent;

(e) if he is a deaf-mute;

(f) if he has failed to pay any fees or charges due to the Market Committee;

(g) if he is a servant of the Market Committee or holds a licence from such Committee other than that of a trader or commission agent;

(h) if he has directly or indirectly or by his partner any share or interest in any contract or employment with or on behalf of or under the Market Committee;

(i) if he has committed breach of the Act or the rules or bye-laws made there under more than once.

(2) A person shall not be chosen as a member -

(i) representing the traders' constituency if he does not ordinarily reside in the market area or if the licence issued to him is cancelled, or suspended or not renewed;

(ii) representing agriculturists' constituency if his main income is not from agriculture or possesses a trader's, commission agent's or broker's licence or has interest in a joint family or a firm which has a trader's or commission agent's licence.

Explanation : For the purpose of this sub-rule, a person shall be deemed to be ordinarily residing in the market area, if he resides in such area for not less than 180 days in a calendar year.

4. The aforesaid rule shows that, if a person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, he incurs disqualification for contesting the election unless such disqualification has been removed by an order by the State Government. In the present matter, the election was contested in the year 2007 and the order of removal of disqualification came to be passed on 8.5.2013. Though the respondent No.6 completed his term as member of A.P.M.C. and even as the Chairman of the A.P.M.C., the point remains as to whether he could have contested the election in the year 2007 and whether the order of the State Government which is shown to be signed by Desk Officer as per the order shown to be made by the Governor, can have retrospective effect.