Bombay High Court
Sunil Hasanrao Deshmukh And Others vs District Deputy Registrar, ... on 20 April, 2023
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 10+11-wp 2570.2023 +1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2570 OF 2023
( Sunil Hasanrao Deshmukh and others
Vs.
District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others )
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2574 OF 2023
( Sunil Hasanrao Deshmukh and others
Vs.
District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. P. S. Chawhan, Advocate for the Petitioner/s.
Ms. M.A. Barabde, AGP for the respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Ram Karode, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. M. V. Samarth, Senior Advocate a/b Mr.V.P.Ingle, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 20th APRIL, 2023 Mr. P. S. Chawhan seeks leave to amend the petition by adding all the contesting persons as respondents.
2. Leave is granted. The contesting persons be added as respondent No.4 and onwards. The addition be done forthwith.
KOLHE ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2023 19:07:03 ::: 2 10+11-wp 2570.2023 +1.odt
3. Heard Mr.Chawhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.V.Samarth learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Mr.Ram Karode for respondent No.2.
4. The petition questions the order dated 05/04/2023 passed by the Returning Officer accepting the objection raised by the petitioner to the nomination of the respondent No.4, on the ground that since the name of respondent No.4 was included in the 'Adtya' constituency as well as agricultural constituency, he stood disqualified (page 82). In appeal this order has been set aside by the order dated 13/04/2023 (page
131) by the respondent No.1 holding that since the broker's license of the respondent No.4 was cancelled by the APMC in its General Meeting dated 13/11/2022, the nomination filed by the respondent No.4 from the Society (general) constituency, was legal and valid.
5. Mr. Chawhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not permissible for the respondent No.1, to upset the order of respondent No.3 on the above ground, as the name of respondent No.4 was included in two constituencies, namely, the traders' constituency, as well as the Society(general) constituency. He also submits that the name of the son of respondent No.4 is also included in the voters' list of the traders' constituency, as a result of which the respondent No.4 had also incurred disqualification under Rule 10(2)(ii) of the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce KOLHE ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2023 19:07:03 ::: 3 10+11-wp 2570.2023 +1.odt Market Committee (Election to Committee) Rules, 2017. He therefore, submits that the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside and that of respondent No.3 restored.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4 points out that since the broker's license of the respondent No.4 stood cancelled on 13/11/2022, on the date of filing of the nomination the respondent No.4, was not disqualified and though his name was included in both the constituencies as indicated above, the nomination filed by respondent No.4 from the Society (general) constituency could not have been rejected. The contention is supported by Mr.Ram Karode, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned AGP for respondent No.1.
7. It is not in dispute that the name of the respondent No.4, stood included in the traders'/brokers' constituency, as well as in the Society (general) constituency. It is equally a matter of record that the broker's license of respondent No.4 stood cancelled by the APMC on 13/11/2022. The nomination form has been filed on 03/04/2023. That being the position, on this ground the nomination could not have been rejected. Rule 10(2) of the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Market Committee (Election to Committee) Rules, 2017 does not contemplate disqualification on that ground.
KOLHE ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2023 19:07:03 ::: 4 10+11-wp 2570.2023 +1.odt
8. The contention that the name of son of the respondent No.4 also stood included in the traders'/brokers' constituency and therefore, respondent No.4 incurred a disqualification under Rule 10(2)(ii) of the aforesaid Rules on the ground that the respondent No.4 has an interest in a joint family which has a trader's or commission agent's or broker's license, would be something, which would have to be established by way of evidence as there is no presumption in the statute, that merely because two persons happened to be related to each other, may be as a father and son, there is a presumption of jointness.
9. I therefore do not see any reason to interfere in the petition, the same is therefore dismissed. No costs.
10. Needless to say, it will be permissible for the petitioner, to raise all these grounds on a properly instituted dispute challenging the election under Rule 72-A of the aforesaid Rules.
JUDGE KOLHE ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2023 19:07:03 :::