The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of election nomination rules, specifically the provisions of rule 21(1) read with rule 20(3) of the Election Rules, 2017, to ensure the acceptance of the petitioner's nomination as the only candidate and voter of the constituency.

JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

Heard Mr. Vivek Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Neha Bhide, learned ‘B’ Panel counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4; and Mr. Vijay Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2

2. Initially this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondent No. 1 to accept his nomination for election as a committee member of the Man Taluka Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dahiwadi, Taluka Man, District Satara (briefly “the APMC” hereinafter) for the term 2021-2022 to 2026-2027; to set aside and quash the order dated 13-1-2021 passed by respondent No. 1 as the returning officer as well as the order dated 22-7-2021 passed by respondent No. 3 as the appellate authority.

3. To elaborate on the above, we may briefly highlight the facts relevant for adjudication.

4. The APMC in question is registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (briefly “the 1963 Act” hereinafter).

5. In exercise of the powers conferred under the 1963 Act, Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Election to Committee) Rules, 2017 (briefly “the Election Rules, 2017”) have been framed. Election Rules, 2017 lay down the rules for conduct of elections to the APMCs in the State of Maharashtra which are conducted by the State Co-operative Election Authority.

6. In the APMC, a constituency has been created to give representation to Hamals and Weighmen. As a matter of fact, this constituency is called ‘Hamals and Weighmen Constituency’. The Election Rules, 2017 was amended in the year 2020. As per the amended rule 5, one member is to be elected from the Constituency of Hamals and Weighmen. As election to the APMC for the period 2021-2022 to 2026-2027 was due, the voters’ list was prepared and finalized. The final voters’ list was published on 18-6-2021.

7. Petitioner is a voter whose name appears in the final voters’ list of the APMC from the Constituency of Hamals and Weighmen. Interestingly petitioner is the only voter from the said constituency. There are no other voters in the said constituency.

8. Be it stated that respondent No. 1 was appointed as the returning officer by the State Co-operative Election Authority with respect to elections to the said APMC. On 6-7-2021, the election programme for the APMC was declared.

9. Petitioner filed his nomination from the Hamals and Weighmen Constituency. As a matter of fact, two sets of nomination forms were filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 on 12-7-2021. In one set of nomination the proposer and the seconder were Santosh Sahebrao Sawant and Nirmala Bal Jadhav respectively. Though they were voters in the final voters’ list, they were from a different constituency i.e., Constituency of Society. In the other set of nomination, Vanita Nitin Sawant and Sanjay Dada Mane were the proposer and the seconder. Again though they were voters in the final voters list of the APMC, they belonged to a different constituency i.e., the Constituency of Grampanchayat.

10. Respondent No. 1 scrutinized the nomination papers of the candidates on 13-7-2021. At that stage, respondent No. 2 raised objection to the nomination of the petitioner. The objection was on the ground that the proposer and the seconder in both sets of nomination papers did not belong to the same constituency as that of the petitioner i.e., Hamals and Weighmen Constituency. Petitioner submitted his reply to the objection. He also questioned the locus standi of respondent No. 2 to raise objection as to the nomination of the petitioner.

11. By order dated 13-7-2021, respondent No. 1 rejected the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that the proposer and the seconder who had signed the nomination forms of the petitioner were not from the same constituency for which petitioner had filed nomination; they belonged to different constituencies.

12. The list of candidates from the different cons