1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7880 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders Mr.Mukul Kulkarni h/f Mr.V.B.Patil,counsel for petitioner. Mr.S.T.Shelke,Adv for R 1. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil,AGP for State Mr.M.S.Deshmukh,counsel for R.2. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 3/09/2010 1] The petitioner is raising exception to the order passed by Returning Officer accepting nomination paper tendered by respondent for the purpose of contesting election to a seat of Member of village Panchayat,Shirsoli, Tq. & Dist.Jalgaon. 2] The petitioner is objecting acceptance of nomination paper tendered by respondent on the ground that he is an employee of local 2 authority and he is disqualified within the meaning of Section 14(1)(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. It is contended that the term “local authority” is defined in Section 12 of the Agriculture Market Produce Committee Act and said definition applies for the class of employees employed by the A.P.M.C. and as such respondent is not eligible to contest election. 3] The counsel for respondent has resisted the petition and contended that A.P.M.C. is a local authority and the Section 12 of the said Act cannot be epso facto made applicable to Bombay Village Panchayats as it does not prescribe any definition of local authority, much less it is contended that A.P.M.C. is a local authority within the meaning of provisions of Bombay Village Panchayats Act. It is needless to go into these aspects at this stage for the reasons that the election programme has reached at an advanced stage and 5th September is the date fixed for casting of votes. The petitioner may have an option open to raise the said question, if occasion arises, by filing proper election petition. No 3 interference is called for at this stage. Petition stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE,J.) umg/wp-7880-10