The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 18(3) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 and the prospective effect of the amendment to the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

JUDGMENT :

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 31st December, 2020 passed by the respondent no.1 thereby rejecting the written objection filed by the petitioner in respect of the Nomination Form filed by the respondent no.2 for contesting the election from Ward No.4 of Gram Panchayat Velu, Taluka Bhor, District Pune.

2. The matter was taken on board in view of the praecipe filed by the respondent no.2 praying for vacating the ad-interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of this court (Vacation Court in Chamber).

3. Mr.Thorat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition filed by his client was rightly heard by the learned Single Judge. This petition cannot be heard by the Division Bench. In support of this submission, learned senior counsel placed reliance on Rule 18(3) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 which reads as under:-

18(3) The decrees or the orders passed by any Subordinate Court or by any quasi Judicial Authority in any suit or proceeding (including suits and proceedings under any Special or Local Laws), but excluding those arising out of the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court and orders passed under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002and Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000;]

4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that challenge to any impugned order passed by the quasi judicial authority in any of the proceedings, under Rule 18(3) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 is required to be heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and not by the Division Bench. He relied upon the judgment of this court in case of Manchak Shahaji Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2011 (3) BCR 812. He also addressed this court on merits of the matter.

5. Mr.Patil, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 on the other hand strongly objects to this submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 is not arising out of the quasi judicial order passed under one or more of the Acts prescribed in Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 and thus the matter will have to be heard by the Division Bench of this Court and not by the learned Single Judge.

6. To deal with the rival submissions of the learned senior counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to deal with the relevant provisions of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.

7. Rule (1) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 clearly provides that every application for the issue of a direction, order or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution shall, if, the matter in dispute is or has arisen substantially outside Greater Bombay, be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench to be appointed by the Chief Justice. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of this petition has arisen outside Greater Mumbai.

8. Rule (17) provides that an application invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution or under Article 228 of the Constitution, shall be filed on the Appellate Side of the High Court and be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench to be appointed by the Chief Justice.

9. Rule (18) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 1,4 and 17 of Chapter XVII, applications under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution (or applications styled as applications under Article 227 of the Co