(1) WP6852-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6852 OF 2009 Subhash s/o Tukaram Patil PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.G. Magare, advocate holding for Mr. R.S. Shinde, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Govt. Pleader for the Respondent-State. Mr. P.S. Dighe, advocate holding for Mr. V.R. Dhorde, advocate for the respondent No. 7. Mr. G.V. Wani, advocate for the respondent No. 8. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 21ST JULY, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. The petitioner contends that he and the respondent No. 8 had contested the elections held to the Agriculture Produce Market Committee (A.P.M.C.), Chopada from the Constituency of Economically Weaker Section of the Society. According to him, the respondent No. 8 procured a certificate from the Tahsildar showing an incorrect income. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No. 8 must be disqualified as Member (2) WP6852-09 of the A.P.M.C. 2. Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 provides the conditions for disqualification. The submission of an incorrect income certificate is not one of the grounds for disqualification of membership. It may be that the respondent No. 8 was not eligible to contest from the Constituency meant for the persons who belong to Economically Weaker Section. However, this dispute cannot be entertained in a writ petition. The petitioner may avail of any alternate efficacious remedy available to him. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in "Sagiruddin Israiluddin Mistry and another v. State of Maharashtra and others" 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 58 where a person who had contested elections to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation was declared disqualified on account of the caste certificate being invalidated. In our opinion, the facts in the present case are completely different. The provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (3) WP6852-09 provides for such a disqualification whereas that is not the case under the Rules governing the Agriculture Produce Market Committee. The petition is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] npj/wp6852-09