JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 – The District Election Officer (APMC) / District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad in Appeal No.6/2023 and the order dated 05.04.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 -The Returning Officer, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gangapur, thereby rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner to contest the election of APMC, Gangapur from Trader Constituency.

Brief facts of the present Writ Petition is as under:

2. The election to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gangapur was due, and as such, election programme was published on 27.03.2023. The last date for submission of the nomination form was on 03.04.2023. The petitioner filed his nomination form on 03.04.2023 to the election of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gangapur from traders constituency. The respondent no. 3 raised objections to the nomination form of the petitioner on the ground that the proposer of the petitioner, namely, Mahesh Navandar is disqualified to be a proposer of the petitioner, and as such, the nomination of the petitioner be rejected.

3. On consideration of the objections raised by the respondent no.3, the nomination form of the petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer on 05.04.2023 on the ground that proposer of the petitioner is disqualified as per the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad under Section 45 (2A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing [Development and Regulation] Act, 1963 [for short ‘1963 Act’]. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order passed by the Returning Officer before the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the same was also rejected by the appellate Authority on the same ground that the proposer of the petitioner was a Committee member in last Committee, which was superseded by order dated 26.07.2019 under Section 45 (2A) of the 1963 Act and the disqualification runs for a period of 6 years from the date of order. Since the proposer was not qualified and competent to give proposal, the petitioner’s nomination was rejected. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, challenging the order passed by the Returning Officer, so also, the appellate authority.

4. Undisputed facts in the matter are that the proposer of the petitioner was a Committee Member in the earlier Committee of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The said Committee was superseded by order dated 26.07.2019 under Section 45 of the 1963 Act and the order was also passed under Section 45 (2A) of the 1963 Act, disqualifying individual members of the Committee for the period of six years.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the proposer of the petitioner is disqualified under Section 45 (2A) of the 1963 Act to be an elected as a member of the Committee for a period of six year from the date of the order under Section 45 (2A). However, the proposer is not disqualified to be a voter so also a proposer or a seconder and the disqualification incurred is only for being a Committee member and thus the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner is illegal.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, so also, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 – Election Authorities submit that disqualification incurred under Section 45 (2A) of the 1963 Act is for being elected as Committee member so also being proposer of a candidate for the election to the Committee of the APMC.

7. In order to appreciate controversy at hand, the following section and rules are relevant for consideration. Section 45 (1) & (2A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing [Development and Regulation] Act, 1963 and Rule 8 (1) proviso, Rule 20 (3), Rule 21 (2) and Rule 25 (2) (b) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Election to Commit