JUDGMENT :

ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. By the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the Returning Officer-Respondent No. 2 directing deletion of the petitioners as well as 48 voters to be deleted from the provisional voters list, the total of 87 voters.

4. The election for APMC-Dharangaon were due and accordingly the elections were declared. The present petition is concerned with the traders constituency of the APMC. Accordingly the provisional voters list was published and the petitioners names were included in the said provisional voters list. Respondents No. 4 and 5 raised objection to several voters in the traders constituency. In the objections it was contended that the said traders in the provisional voters list were not doing business in the APMC market area. There is no resolution granting them traders license. The names are included only in the traders constituency keeping in mind the ensuing elections. Essentially, the objected members of the provisional voters list do not have any business in the APMC market. The said objections were responded by the petitioners that the petitioners are the licensed traders of the APMC and the license is evidenced from the receipts given by the market committee and that their license has never been revoked and thus they contended that from the year 2020 they are holding valid license and had been conducting business and therefore their names have to be maintained in the final voters list.

5. The election authority on the objection raised issued notice to the market committee. In the reply filed by the market committee it was pointed out that the petitioners have paid license fees. The APMC gave documents showing fees paid by the objected voters in provisional voters list towards license fees, license renewal fees, market fees, market maintenance fees from the year 2021 to 2022-2023. It also contended by the APMC that traders who have not paid license fees for this period the names of those candidates be deleted. By the impugned order the respondent no. 2 directed deletion of the names of total of 87 traders and the reason given for deletion is that from the year 2020 the licensed traders have not done any business within the market area and that is the only reason for which the petitioners and others are deleted from the provisional voters list.

6. The petitioners in the present writ petition have challenged the order passed by the returning officer contending therein that the Returning Officer’s power to scrutinize the claims and objection is summary in nature and is only limited to the provisions in Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Election to Committee) Rules, 2017. It is further contended that in the event the traders have not done any business then the appropriate remedy is to revoke their license or not grant renewal to the licenses within the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. But as long as the petitioners have license for the APMC it is not available to the election authority to delete the names from the provisional voters list.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the election authority so also objectors submits that the petitioners are not holding license of the APMC. In any event in the instant case the petitioners have not done any business for last 3 years and thus the respondent authority is justified in deleting the names of the petitioners from the final voters list.

8. As regards Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Election to Committee) Rules, 2017, the learned counsel contend that the authority is entitled to enquire into the business conducted by the traders for the last 2 years so also they further contend that even if this court holds that the election authority cannot go into the