bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7327 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7327 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7327 OF 2008 Dashrath Shrirang Mane ... Petitioner v/s Election Officer/Returning Officer, Karmayogi Shankarraoji Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.S.Dani for the petitioner. Mr.P.D.Dalvi with Mr.P.H.Gaikwad for the Resp.No.2. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare with Mr.S.P.Kadam for the Resp.No.3. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for the Resp. No.32. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petition challenges the order passed by the appellate authority confirming the order passed by the returning officer on 11.10.2008. The returning officer rejected the nomination paper filed by the petitioner from Gat No.4 comprising producer members’ constituency for non-compliance of bye-law No.29 (gha) read with bye-law No.27-A. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a producer 2 member of the Karkhana in which elections are to be held. He had filed his nomination for participating in the elections. The returning officer has refused his nomination paper on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions stipulated in the bye-laws of the Karkhana. One such bye-law is with respect to supply of sugar-cane for three consecutive years prior to the election. It is the case of the petitioner that he has supplied sugar-cane to the Karkhana in the years 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08. However, for the period 2005-06, he was unable to supply the sugar-cane as the Karkhana had refused to accept his crop. A letter to that effect was written, according to the petitioner, in 2006 itself to the Commissioner for Sugar. 3. The returning officer has found that the petitioner had not supplied sugar-cane for three years consecutively as required under the bye-laws and, therefore, he was not entitled to contest the election. 4. The appellate authority has confirmed this view of the returning officer by concluding that there was a gap of one year in 2005-2006 when the petitioner had not supplied the sugar-cane. It appears that certain letters were produced before the appellate authority 3 which indicate that the petitioner had diverted his sugar-cane crop to some other Karkhana in the year 2005-06 and, therefore, the appellate authority has held that the petitioner has unjustifiably not supplied the sugar-cane to the Karkhana for the year 2005-2006. 5. In my view, there is no need to interfere with the orders passed by the two authorities. Both the authorities have taken into consideration the provisions of law and the facts obtained in the present case. 6. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Yashwant Yashwant Yashwant Khashaba Dubal & ors. v/s Krishna Sah. Sakhar Khashaba Dubal & ors. v/s Krishna Sah. Sakhar Khashaba Dubal & ors. v/s Krishna Sah. Sakhar Karkhana, Karkhana, Karkhana, Maryadit & ors., reported in 1989 C.T.J. 325, Maryadit & ors., reported in 1989 C.T.J. 325, Maryadit & ors., reported in 1989 C.T.J. 325, wherein the Division Bench has observed that a person would not be disqualified if he is unable to comply with the bye-laws of the Karkhana for a good or justifiable reason or for a reason beyond his control or capacity. Both the authorities below have found, on the basis of the material on record, that there was no good or sufficient reason which was beyond the control or capacity of the petitioner for not sending the sugar-cane crop to the Kharkhana in the crushing season 2005-06. 4 7. In my opinion, therefore, the petition deserves to be rejected and stands rejected.