Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. To bolster his arguments, he relied on the case of Dalsing Shamsing Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ; 2006 (3) Mh.L.J. 592. He prayed to allow the writ petitions.

9. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Kadam for Returning Officer/respondent No.5 has vehemently argued that once the election is declared, the petitions against the rejection of 13 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odt nomination become redundant. He referred to Rule 78 of the Rules 2014 and pointed out that the only remedy is under Section 91 of the MCS Act. He also referred into service Rule 25(2) of Rules 2014 and vehemently argued that the Returning Officer has to make a summary inquiry, and he is not empowered to make the inquiry in detail as if it is a proceeding. He would submit that whether really respondent No.6 denied collecting sugarcane from petitioners is a disputed fact. Otherwise, also, it is not the jurisdiction of the Returning Officer. By way of amendment to Section 26, the active and non-active member clause has been deleted. However, every Society has its bylaws. It has a statutory force. Therefore, barely amending Sections 26 and 27 of the Act 1960 would not automatically make the bylaws redundant about the qualification to contest the election.

against nomination does not take away the right of the aggrieved persons to impugn the elections under Section 91 of the MCS Act.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) ...

vmk/-