1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5328 OF 2009. ( Prakash Champatrao Adhau -: versus :- District Deputy Registrar and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 17, 2009. Heard Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Petitioner happened to be a Trader, duly licensed by the A.P.M.C. Chandur Bazar and as per his version he surrendered that licence on 17.11.2009 and thereafter on 19.11.2009, submitted his nomination paper for election of A.P.M.C. Morshi. The nomination papers were from two constituencies, namely Cooperative Societies Constituency and Other Backward Class Constituency. During the scrutiny of nomination papers, no objection was taken on his nomination paper from Cooperative Societies Constituency and it was accepted. The other nomination was objected to by respondent no.4 on the ground that petitioner was a trader and therefore, was not entitled to contest, as he was not an agriculturist. That objection was rejected by the Returning Officer, after holding that petitioner was not a Trader in the area of A.P.M.C. Morshi. Respondent no.4 then assailed that order in Appeal no.1/2009, and the Appellate 2 Authority namely – respondent no.1 allowed that appeal and rejected the nomination paper of petitioner. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner in this background contends that, as the licence was already surrendered on 17.11.2009 and petitioner had not functioned as Trader even with A.P.M.C. Chandur Bazar thereafter, the nomination paper could not have been rejected. He states that, the documents prior to 17.11.2009 showing working as Trader, have been looked into by respondent no.1 and this is perverse and erroneous. In the alternative, he has also pointed out that respondent no.4 lacks locus to raise such objection to his nomination paper. He contends that having surrendered his licence on 17.11.2009 and discontinued his business, the respondent no.1 ought to have upheld the order of respondent no.2. Shri Ghodeswar, learned counsel for respondent no.4 states that, respondent no.4 is a licensed trader of A.P.M.C. Morshi and therefore, has rightly taken objection. He points out that as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing [Development and Regulation] Act, 1963 and Rules, 1967, merely holding of some land is not sufficient to construe that a person is agriculturist and in view of the specific definition, a person like petitioner who hold licence as a trader is excluded from that definition. He points out that on 19.11.2009 was the last date for submission of nomination paper and petitioner claimed to have surrendered his licence on 17.11.2009. He therefore, argues that just by an act of surrender two days prior to to submission of nomination paper a person who is otherwise trader, cannot get himself converted into an agriculturist. 3 Learned AGP is supporting the order passed by respondent no.1. It is to be noted, that the concept of agriculturist is to be understood in the background of definition thereof, as contained in the Act. A person who earns his livelihood from trading activity and has traders licence is excluded from that definition. Because of this bar only, petitioner claimed to have surrendered his licence on 17.11.2009 and also claim that he has discontinued his business from that date. He has not produced any material on record to show that his request for cancellation/surrender was accepted by the A.P.M.C. Chandur Bazar. Not only this, he indirectly has accepted that till 17.11.2009, he was trader and therefore, his main source of income was not from agriculture. It is therefore, clear that just by surrendering licence few days before the submission of nomination paper, it cannot be held that his main source of income thereby has now become agriculture. Respondent no.1 has referred to some old documents to gather that, petitioner was functioning as trader with A.P.M.C. Chandur Bazar. But reference to those documents is uncalled for, because it is an admitted position. Respondent no.4 himself is a duly licensed trader of A.P.M.C. Morshi, whose elections are being conducted. He therefore, had necessary locus to challenge the nomination paper. I therefore, find nothing wrong with the order passed by respondent no.1. No case is made out, warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is thus dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.