The election authority cannot inquire into the validity of grant or renewal of licenses under Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Election to Committee) Rules, 2017.

JUDGMENT

Arun R. Pedneker, J. - By the present writ petition the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 06.03.2023, passed by respondent no.4 - the District Election Officer (APMC) & the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Beed thereby rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner to the provisional voters list of respondent no.5 - the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ambajogai.

2. Heard Mr. Avinash N. Irpatgire, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, learned AGP for respondent / State, Mr. S. K. Kadam, learned Advocate for respondents no.3 and 4, Mr. S. A. Ambad, learned Advocate for respondent no.5 and Mr. S. G. Dodya, learned Advocate for respondents no.6 and 7.

3. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, the writ petition is heard finally.

4. The present petition concerns the voters list of the traders constituency of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ambajogai, Taluka - Ambajogai, District - Beed. Respondent no.4 - the District Election Officer (APMC) & the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Beed published the provisional voters list on 15.02.2023 for the election to the respondent no.5 APMC. In accordance with the election programme issued by respondent no.3, objections were invited to the provisional voters list. The petitioner on 23.02.2023 raised objection for inclusion of 483 names in the provisional voters list of traders constituency. The Respondent no.4 issued notices on the objection of the petitioner to the respondent no.5 so also issued notice to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ambajogai with direction to submit a report with regard to the objection raised by the petitioner and the hearing on the objections was fixed on 01.03.2023.

5. Respondent no.4, on 06.03.2023, rejected the objection raised by the petitioner. Respondent no.4 by it's order dated 06.03.2023 observed that the objections are raised as regards traders who are holding licenses however are not doing business for the last more than 2 years in the market area of the APMC and inquiry be conducted against the said traders and they be disqualified. The objector has also given a list of 483 members who are not doing trading activity. From the report received from the APMC it was found that 483 members have licenses and they were renewed. It was also mentioned in the report of the APMC that 88 traders had not renewed their licenses and, as such, their names were not included in the provisional voters list. The election authority respondent no. 4 held that the objections raised by the petitioner are vague and the provisional voters list contains the names of the members whose licenses are renewed and that the names of 483 names were directed to be maintained in the final voters list and the 88 members whose names were not in the provisional voters list for not having renewed their licenses, their names are not included in the final voters list.

6. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the election authority / the respondent no.4. The petitioner contends that 483 members on the provisional voters list of the traders constituency are not conducting the business in the market of the APMC and that they were not actually doing business in the market area and, as such, their names ought to have been deleted by respondent no.4 from the final voters list.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent no.4 ought to have take into consideration that 483 traders which were on the provisional voters list of the traders constituency were not conducting business in the market area and yet their names were included and, as such, licenses / renewals granted to them ought not to have been taken into consideration while including their names in the final voters list.

8. The law on the scope of inquiry under Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Election to Committee) Rules, 2017 has been examined in Judgme