JUDGMENT :

Z.A. Haq, J.

1. None appears for the respondent No. 2, though served. The respondent No. 2 is formal party and looking to the urgency of the matter, writ petition is taken up for hearing.

2. Heard Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Kalyani Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1.

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

4. The petitioner had contested the election for the post of Member of Gram-panchayat in August, 2015. The petitioner could not get elected at that time. Now, the bye-elections for the post of Member of Gram-panchayat which has fallen vacant due to death of one of its Member, is being conducted. The election programme is declared on 22nd May, 2019. The petitioner had submitted his nomination form and after the scrutiny on 7th June 2019, the nomination form of the petitioner came to be accepted. The election is scheduled on 23rd June, 2019.

5. On 10th June 2019, some Members of Grampanchayat objected to the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is disqualified to be Member of the Gram-panchayat for 5 years as per order passed by the learned Collector, Chandrapur on 5th May, 2017. The Returning Officer accepted the objection raised by the Members of the Gram-panchayat and has passed the impugned order and has rejected the nomination form of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by rejection of nomination form, the petitioner has filed this petition.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that once the scrutiny of nomination forms was over on 7th June 2019, the Returning Officer ceased to have powers to again scrutinize the nomination forms and to examine whether the forms are properly accepted or not. This submission is made relying on Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959 (for short "the Rules of 1959"). According to the petitioner, the copy of order dated 5th May, 2017 passed by the Collector was not served on him and he was not aware about that order till 10th June 2019, when some Members of the Gram-panchayat raised objection to his candidature. It is submitted that after getting knowledge of the order dated 5th May 2017, the petitioner has challenged the same in appeal under Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959 and the appeal is pending before Divisional Commissioner.

7. The respondent No. 1/Returning Officer has filed affidavit stating that he is not in a position to clarify whether the copy of order dated 5th May, 2017 passed by learned Collector has been served on the petitioner or not.

8. After examining the facts of the case and the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959, I find considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. It cannot be said that the petitioner had knowledge about the passing of the order dated 5th May 2017, and suppressing this fact, he submitted his nomination form. The Returning Officer having undertaken the scrutiny and having accepted the nomination form of the petitioner, could not have subsequently, after 3 days, rejected the nomination form. Learned A.G.P. has not been able to point out any provision under the Rules of 1959 which enables the Scrutiny Officer to review his decision subsequently. Another factor which goes in favour of the petitioner, at this stage, is that if the nomination form of the petitioner is rejected now on the ground that he is disqualified for 5 years by the order dated 5th May 2017 and the appeal filed by the petitioner against that order is allowed, the situation would be irreversible and the petitioner will not have any remedy in law to seek redressal but if the nomination form of the petitioner is accepted and he gets elected, the party aggrieved may avail appropriate remedy to challenge the election of the petitioner.

9. Thus, after examining all the aspects, in my view, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and has to be set aside.

Hence, the following order:

(i) The impugned order is set aside.

(ii) The responden