1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1397 OF 2010 (Pradeep M. Dhanre vs. State of Maharashstra & Ors.) 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. APRIL 01, 2010. Heard finally Shri Shitut, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mujumdar, learned AGP for respondents No.1 to 3. The elections of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mandhal, Tahsil Kuhi, are scheduled on 11th April 2010. The nomination paper of present petitioner as agriculturist has been rejected by the appellate authority after accepting objection raised by present Respondent No. 4 on the ground that his land is already acquired by State Government for its Gosikhurd Project. Shri Shitut, learned counsel has contended that admittedly the land belonged to the petitioner and by mere acquisition, he cannot cease to be an agriculturist. He states that the nomination paper when filed was not objected by anybody and present Respondent No. 4, because of rejection of his nomination paper, filed appeal under Rule 51 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967, (hereinafter referred to as 2 Rules) and in that appeal after noticing the acquisition, nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected by the appellate authority i.e. Respondent No. 2. He has relied upon the provisions of Rule 50 of the Rules with Rule 51 and judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sheshrao vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldana, reported at 1975 Mh. L.J. NOC 35, to urge that as nomination paper was never objected to, on such ground, rejection in appeal on that ground is contrary to law. Shri Mujumdar, learned AGP at the outset has pointed out that erroneously a wrong document has been annexed along with his reply as Annexure – R1. He has sought leave to replace it. Accordingly, leave has been granted. By pointing out the correct document at Annexure – R1, the learned AGP states that the nomination paper of the petitioner was objected by Respondent No. 3 on 23.03.2010 itself and hence the cognizance of that ground by appellate authority is not barred. He further points out that because land of Respondent No. 4 is acquired under Gosikhurd Project, his nomination has been rejected and hence the appellate authority has applied same standards to nomination paper of the petitioner. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the papers. It is seen that at the time of scrutiny of nomination paper of the petitioner, nobody has objected. The scrutiny of nomination paper 3 of respondent No. 4 was conducted after acceptance of nomination paper of the petitioner. Because nomination paper of Respondent No. 4 was rejected, respondent No. 4 has filed this objection on 23.03.2010. In that objection he has specifically mentioned that dual standards have been applied by the Returning Officer. He has stated that when nomination paper of the petitioner has been accepted, his nomination paper also deserved to be accepted. This language, therefore, shows that he filed this objection after the acceptance of nomination paper of present petitioner. Thus, at the stage at which nomination paper of present petitioner was scrutinized, nobody has raised objection to it. In this view of the matter, judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sheshrao vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldana, (supra) clearly clinches the issue and consideration of objection by Respondent No. 4 by appellate authority is, therefore, without any jurisdiction. Even though learned AGP has tried to urge that the defect subsists and he has also attempted to demonstrate by inviting attention to various annexures along with the petition that the award acquiring land of the petitioner is also published, but as law of Election is technical and rights and obligations are strictly regulated by provisions thereof, it is clear that the ground not raised in scrutiny could not be looked into by appellate authority in Rule 51 of the Rules. 4 The impugned order rejecting nomination paper of the petitioner is, therefore, unsustainable. The said order dated 15.03.2010 is quashed and set aside only to the extent it relates to the petitioner. Respondents No. 2 & 3 are directed to accept the nomination paper of the petitioner and to take further appropriate steps to enable him to contest the election on 11th April 2010. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE *GS.