1 W.P.NO.3664.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WIRT PETITION NO. 3664 OF 2010 Balu S/o Sadashiv Jathar ... Petitioner V E R S U S The Collector Ahmednagar District Ahmednagar and others ... Respondents ... Mr. Sandeep B.Deshmukh,Advocate for Petitioner Mr. V.B.Ghatge,A.G.P.for respondent-State Mr. R.N.Dhorde Advocate holding for Mr. N.V.Gaware,Advocate for respondent NO.4. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2010 PER COURT 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] This petition is filed by petitioner Balu Jathar against rejection of his nomination paper on the ground that the scrutiny was not properly done and that his candidature was in valid. 3] The election programme was scheduled for the elections of Kukkadi Co-operative Sugar Factory. The petitioner could be regarded as a candidate with valid nomination, if he could have satisfied the necessary conditions. Apart from being member of the Co-operative Sugar Factory, he was required 2 W.P.NO.3664.10 to satisfy the conditions that he had supplied sugar cane crop to the same sugar factory for the period of three years, preceding the election year. It was found that he had not supplied the sugar cane to the Kukkadi Sugar Factory for the relevant years, therefore, his nomination form was rejected. The Appellate Authority, in Election Appeal No. 19 of 2010 confirmed the said order. 3] The learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, infact, such evidence regarding supply of sugar cane crop was not available, when the Scrutiny Officer gave an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the lapse. But it was subsequently available, and therefore, the copies of the relevant documents were furnished before the Appellate Authority, when the Election Appeal No. 19 of 2010 was filed. It is important to note that the Scrutiny Officer had called upon the petitioner Balu Jathar to explain why sugar cane crop was not supplied by him for the period required i.e. preceding three years. His explanation was that he could not cultivate the sugar crop except for one year, due to lack of irrigation facility. He had filed only documentary evidence pertaining to the year 2008-2009. The impugned order of the Appellate Authority reveals that, the petitioner had given letter to the Scrutiny Officer on 09.04.2010, wherein his explanation was that he could not supply the sugar cane crop for two-three years continuously, 3 W.P.NO.3664.10 because due to absence of irrigation facility the sugar cane crop was unavailable and it had been burnt away. The explanation given by him before the Scrutiny Officer and explanation given by him before the Appellate Authority are inconsistent with each other. Needless to say, either of the version is incorrect and improper. This Court does not entertain the disputed questions of facts. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- ( V.R.KINGAONKAR ) JUDGE MTK/