{"id":106212,"date":"2010-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-01-26T11:44:38","modified_gmt":"2016-01-26T06:14:38","slug":"sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan vs Unknown on 23 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan vs Unknown on 23 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde, Mridula Bhatkar<\/div>\n
                                                   1\n\n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                        NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                              \n                            WRIT PETITION NO. 2851\/2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n          Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan,\n          aged 53 years, Occ. Agriculturist, r\/o at Post\n          Waradh, Tah. Ralegaon, Dist. Yavatmal.         .....PETITIONER\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                               ...V E R S U S...\n\n    1.    The Election Officer and Assistant\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n          Registrar for election of Agriculture\n          Produce Market Committee, Ralegaon,\n                                     \n          c\/o District Deputy Registrar, Yavatmal.\n\n    2.    Prafulla s\/o Khushalrao Mankar,\n                                    \n          aged major, Occ. Agriculturist,  r\/o at Saoner,\n          Tah. Ralegaon, Dist. Yavatmal.\n\n    3.    District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,\n            \n\n\n          Yavatmal, Tah. And Distt. Yavatmal.\n         \n\n\n\n    4.    State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary,\n          Department of Co-operation, Marketing and\n          Textiles, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.             ....RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n    Mr. S. Paliwal, Advocate for petitioner.\n    Mr. N. W. Nambre, Government Pleader for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4\n    Mr. A. M. Ghare, Advocate for respondent no.2.\n\n\n\n\n\n    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                CORAM:- S. A. BOBDE &\n                                            MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                               rd
\n                                DATE    :-\n<\/p>\n
                                            23<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                  SEPTEMBER
\n                                                            , 2010<\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT (Per:- S. A. Bobde, J.)<\/p>\n
    1.               The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   seeks   leave   to <\/p>\n
    amend the prayer clause.\n<\/p>\n
                     Leave   granted.     Amendment   be   carried   out   forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
    Amended slip be served on the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    2.               Rule.     Rule   returnable   forthwith.     Heard   finally   by <\/p>\n
    consent of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
    3.               The petitioner has challenged order  dated 03.06.2010 <\/p>\n
    by   which   it   is   held   that   respondent   no.2   is   eligible   to   contest   the <\/p>\n
    election   of   Agriculture   Produce   Market   Committee,   Ralegaon.     The <\/p>\n
    petitioner has further prayed for direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 <\/p>\n
    to   reject   nomination   papers   of   respondent   no.2   for   contesting   the <\/p>\n
    election.     During   the   pendency   of   the   petition,   respondent   no.2 <\/p>\n
    contested the election since there was no stay to the election and has <\/p>\n
    been declared elected to the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, <\/p>\n
    Ralegaon   from   Co-operative   Society’s   Constituency   under   Section <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
    13(1)   (a)   (i)   of  the   Maharashtra   Agricultural   Produce   Marketing  <\/p>\n
    (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the <\/p>\n
    “APMC Act”).\n<\/p>\n
    4.              In   view   of   the   fact   that   respondent   no.2   has   been <\/p>\n
    declared   elected,   Mr.   Sambre,   the   learned   Government   pleader, <\/p>\n
    submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of election <\/p>\n
    petition   under   Rule   88   of   the  Maharashtra   Agricultural   Produce <\/p>\n
    Marketing   (Regulation)   Rules,   1967  (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the <\/p>\n
    “APMC Rules”).   Mr. Paliwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, <\/p>\n
    points out that Rule 88 of APMC Rules has, in fact, been deleted from <\/p>\n
    the   book   on   02.11.2007.     Mr.   Sambre,   the   learned   Government <\/p>\n
    Pleader,   however,   submitted   that   the   deletion   of   rule   88   was <\/p>\n
    accidental and that the rule has been restored by Notification in the <\/p>\n
    Official Gazette dated 13.08.2010.  Rule 88 of the APMC Rules reads <\/p>\n
    as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
          “88. Determination of validity of election.<\/p>\n
          (1) If the validity of any election, including bye-election of
\n          a member of a Market Committee is brought in question by  <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
    any person  qualified either  to be elected or to vote at the
\n    election   to   which   such   question   refers,   such   person   may,  <\/p>\n
    within  seven   days after the  date  of  the  declaration  of  the  <\/p>\n
    result of the election, apply in writing to the Collector.\n<\/p>\n
    (2) On   receipt   of   an   application   under   sub-rule   (1),   the  <\/p>\n
    Collector shall after giving an opportunity to the applicant
\n    to be heard and after making such inquiry as he deems fit,  <\/p>\n
    pass an order confirming or amending the declared result of  <\/p>\n
    election  or setting the election  aside.    If the Collector  sets
\n    aside   the   election,   he   shall   fix   a   date,   as   soon   as  <\/p>\n
    conveniently may be, for holding a fresh election.\n<\/p>\n
    (3) Any person  aggrieved by the decision  of the Collector  <\/p>\n
    may within seven days from the date on which the decision  <\/p>\n
    is   communicated   to   him,   appeal   to   the   Commissioner
\n    appointed   under   Section   6   of   the   Maharashtra   Land  <\/p>\n
    Revenue   Code,   1966   (Mah.   XLI   of   1966)   against   such
\n    decision   of   the   Collector   subject   to   the   decision   of   the
\n    Commissioner   appointed   under   Section   6   of   the
\n    Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Mah. XLI of 1966)  <\/p>\n
    in appeal shall be final.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
                  In the circumstances,   we see no difficulty in directing <\/p>\n
    the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy under the APMC Rules.\n<\/p>\n
    5.            Mr.   Paliwal,   the   leaned   counsel   for   the   petitioner, <\/p>\n
    however, points out that the APMC Rules have to be laid before each <\/p>\n
    House of the State Legislature while it is in Session for a total period <\/p>\n
    of thirty days, as required by Section 60 sub section (4) of the APMC  <\/p>\n
    Act.   Rule 88 of the APMC Rules, not having been so laid before each <\/p>\n
    House while it is in Session for a total period of thirty days, the Rule <\/p>\n
    cannot be said to have come  into force  and, therefore,  the remedy <\/p>\n
    provided by the Rule is also not available.  Sub Section (4) of Section <\/p>\n
    60 of the  APMC Act,  which provides for laying the Rules before the <\/p>\n
    Legislature reads, as follows.:-\n<\/p>\n
          “60. Rules
\n          (1) …..<\/p>\n
          (2) …..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (3) …..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (3A)…..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
           (4) Every rule made under this section shall be laid, as soon
\n           as may be after it is made, before each House of the State  <\/p>\n
           Legislature while it is in session for a total period of thirty  <\/p>\n
           days   which   may   be   comprised   in   one   session   or   in   two
\n           successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session in
\n           which   it   is   so   laid   or   the   session   immediately   following.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Both   Houses   agree   in   making   modification   in   the   rule   or
\n           both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule <\/p>\n
           shall from the date of  publication  of a notification  in  the  <\/p>\n
           Official   Gazette   of   such   have   effect   only   in   such   modified
\n           form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so however that  <\/p>\n
           any   such   modification   or   annulment   shall   be   without
\n           prejudice   to   the   validity   of   anything   previously   done   or
\n           omitted to be done under that rule.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     Mr.   Paliwal,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner, <\/p>\n
    further submits that a rule cannot be said to have been brought into <\/p>\n
    force  until a period of thirty days is over because  it is open to the <\/p>\n
    House   to   modify   the   rule   or   to   nullify   it   completely.     The   learned <\/p>\n
    counsel further states that rule 88 of the  APMC Rules  was published <\/p>\n
    on the last date of sitting of the House of Legislature on 13.08.2010 <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
    and that it is possible that the ensuing Winter Session of the House <\/p>\n
    does not extend to a period of thirty days as has been the case in the <\/p>\n
    past and, therefore, it cannot be brought into force even in the next <\/p>\n
    Session  since  the Session,  during which  the Rule  is laid before  the <\/p>\n
    House, must have a duration of thirty days.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    6.               It is, therefore, necessary to construe the laying clause <\/p>\n
    as contained in Sub Section (4) of Section 60 of the APMC Act.  On a <\/p>\n
    plain reading of Sub Section (4), it cannot be said that rules must be <\/p>\n
    laid before each House of the Legislature only in one Session with a <\/p>\n
    duration   of   thirty   days.   Sub   Section   (4)   of   Section   60   itself <\/p>\n
    contemplates that rules should be laid before each House of the State <\/p>\n
    Legislature while it is in Session for a total period of thirty days and <\/p>\n
    that   the   thirty   days   may   be   in   one   Session   or   in   two   successive <\/p>\n
    Sessions.  The argument, thus, must be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    7.               It   is,   however,   important   to   consider   whether   the <\/p>\n
    “laying clause”  is  directory  or  mandatory  and  whether, therefore, a <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
    rule   enacted  by the  Government  comes  into  force  only  upon  being <\/p>\n
    laid before each house of the Legislature.  In Hukam Chand etc…vs..\n<\/p>\n
    Union  of  India  and  ors.;   AIR  1972  SC 2427,  the  Supreme   Court <\/p>\n
    noted the existence  of  three categories of  “laying  clauses”  generally <\/p>\n
    employed by the Legislatures.   They are; (i)  Laying without further  <\/p>\n
    procedure;  (ii)  Laying subject  to negative resolution;  and (iii)  Laying  <\/p>\n
    subject to affirmative resolution.\n<\/p>\n
    8.              Examples   of   the   three   kinds   of   clauses   are   described <\/p>\n
    pithily in Mathura Prasad Yadava ..vs.. Inspector General, Railway <\/p>\n
    Protection   Force,   Railway   Board,   New   Delhi   and   ors.;   1974 <\/p>\n
    M.P.L.J.373 in para 9.  They are;\n<\/p>\n
    i)   Laying without further procedure:-\n<\/p>\n
         An   example   of   this   category   is   Section   3   (6)   of   the  Essential  <\/p>\n
    Commodoties Act, 1955, which provides that  “every order made shall  <\/p>\n
    be laid before both the Houses of the Parliament as soon as as may be  <\/p>\n
    after it is made.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
    ii)   Laying subject to a negative resolution:-\n<\/p>\n
          An   example   of   this   category   is  given   as  Section   21   (3)   of   the <\/p>\n
    Railway   Protection   Force   Act.     i.e.   the   Rule   is   enacted   subject   to <\/p>\n
    modification or annulment by the Legislature.\n<\/p>\n
    iii) Laying subject to affirmative resolution:-\n<\/p>\n
          An   example of this category is given as Section 28 (2) of the <\/p>\n
    Mines   And   Mineral   (Regulation   and   Development)   Act,   1955,   which <\/p>\n
    reads  “no   rules   made   shall   come   into   force   until   they   have   been  <\/p>\n
    approved whether  with or or without modifications  by each House of  <\/p>\n
    Parliament.”\n<\/p>\n
    9.               The Supreme Court has referred to the decision of the <\/p>\n
    Madhya   Pradesh   High   Court   with   approval   in  M\/s.   Atlas   Cycle <\/p>\n
    Industries   Ltd.   and   ors.   ..vs..   The   State   of   Haryana   (1979)   2 <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court Cases 196; relied on by the petitioner, and held that <\/p>\n
    the laying clause, which falls for consideration before it i.e. Section 3 <\/p>\n
    (6) of the  Essential Commodities Act  (supra) was directory in nature <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
    and belonged to the first category. The relevant observations are as <\/p>\n
    under:-\n<\/p>\n
         “22.  Now at page 317 of the aforesaid Edition of Craies on
\n         Statute Law, the question whether the direction to lay the
\n         rules   before   Parliament   is   mandatory   or   merely   directory  <\/p>\n
         and   whether   laying   is   a   condition   precedent   to   their
\n         operation or may be neglected without prejudice to the effect
\n         of   the  rules   are  answered   by  saying   that   “each   case  must  <\/p>\n
         depend   on   its   own   circumstances   or   the   wording   of   the  <\/p>\n
         statute   under   which   the   rules   are   made”.     In   the   instant
\n         case, it would be noticed that sub-section (6) of Section 3 of  <\/p>\n
         the Act merely provides that every order made under Section
\n         3 by the Central Government or by any officer or authority  <\/p>\n
         of the Central Government shall be laid before both Houses  <\/p>\n
         of Parliament, as soon as may be after it is made.   It does
\n         not  provide  that  it  shall  be  subject  to the  negative  or   the
\n         affirmative resolution by either House of Parliament.  It also <\/p>\n
         does not provide that it shall be open to the Parliament to
\n         approve or disapprove the order made under Section 3 of the
\n         Act.     It   does   not   even   say   that   it   shall   be   subject   to   any  <\/p>\n
         modification  which  either   House  of  Parliament   may  in  its
\n         wisdom   think   it   necessary   to   provide.     It   does   not   even
\n         specify  the period  for which  the order  is to be laid before  <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
           both Houses of Parliament nor does it provide any penalty
\n           for non-observance of or non-compliance with the direction  <\/p>\n
           as   to   the   laying   of   the   order   before   both   House   of  <\/p>\n
           Parliament.  It would also be noticed that the requirement as
\n           to the laying of the order before both House of Parliament is
\n           not a condition precedent but subsequent to the making of  <\/p>\n
           the  order.     In   other   words,   there  is   no  prohibition   to  the
\n           making of the orders without the approval of both Houses of  <\/p>\n
           Parliament.     In   these  circumstances,   we  are  clearly   of   the  <\/p>\n
           view   that   the   requirement   as   to   laying   contained   in   sub-
\n           section   (6)   of   Section   3   of   the   Act   falls   within   the   first  <\/p>\n
           category,   i.e.   “simple   laying”   and   is   directory   not
\n           mandatory.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      It   is   clear   that   Sub   Section   (4)   of   Section   60   of   the <\/p>\n
    APMC   Act  does   not   prescribe   “simple   laying”   without   further <\/p>\n
    procedure.  The rule, after enactment introduces a further procedure <\/p>\n
    i.e.   of   laying   before   both   Houses   of   Legislature.     So   also,   the   said <\/p>\n
    clause does not prescribe laying subject to affirmative resolution since <\/p>\n
    there is no requirement that draft of the rules must be approved by <\/p>\n
    each House of Legislature before they come into force.   Thus, on a <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
    plain construction, sub Section (4) of Section 60 of the APMC Act can <\/p>\n
    be   said   to   prescribe   a   laying   subject   to   negative   resolution   and, <\/p>\n
    therefore, directory.   Such a clause has been described by  Craies  as <\/p>\n
    follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “Negative resolution.-  Instruments so laid have immediate
\n           operative  effect   but  are subject  to  annulment   within   forty
\n           days without prejudice to a new instrument being made. The  <\/p>\n
           phraseology   generally   used   is   “subject   to   annulment   in  <\/p>\n
           pursuance   of   a  resolution   of   either   House   of   Parliament”.
\n           This is by far the commonest form of laying.  It acts mostly  <\/p>\n
           as a deterrent and sometimes forces a Minister (in Sir Cecil
\n           Carr’s   phrase)   to   “buy   off   opposition”   by   promising   some
\n           modification.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    10.              The real question, that comes for consideration, in the <\/p>\n
    present case is whether Rule 88 of the APMC Rules came into force on <\/p>\n
    its enactment and publication in the Official Gazette or whether the <\/p>\n
    coming into force is postponed to the laying of the Rule before the <\/p>\n
    two Houses of Legislature and its modification or annulment by the <\/p>\n
    Houses i.e. subject of a negative resolution.   There is no doubt that, <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
    Sub   Section   (4)   of   Section   60   of   the  APMC   Act  has   an   immediate <\/p>\n
    operative   effect   and   is   subject   to   annulment   or   modification.     The <\/p>\n
    intention   of   the   Legislature   that   a   Rule   should   come   into   effect <\/p>\n
    immediately   subject   to   a   negative   resolution   of   the   House   of <\/p>\n
    Legislature is evident from the last part of sub section (4) of Section <\/p>\n
    60,   which   provides   that   the   modification   or   annulment   shall   be <\/p>\n
    without   prejudice   to   the   validity   of   anything   previously   done   or <\/p>\n
    omitted to be done under that rule.  This postulates that things can be <\/p>\n
    done under the Rule as soon as it is enacted and that such thing done <\/p>\n
    should be treated as laid even if the Rule is modified or nullified by <\/p>\n
    the Legislature.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    11.             We   are   fortified   in   this   view   by   the   judgment   in <\/p>\n
    Bailey ..vs.. Williamson 1873 LR VIII QUB 118  referred to by the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in M\/s. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. and ors. (supra).\n<\/p>\n
    That was a case in which the appellant was convicted under Section 4 <\/p>\n
    of the  Parks Regulations Act, 1872.   The relevant observations in the <\/p>\n
    judgment are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                          14<\/span><\/p>\n
    “…the appellant was convicted under Section 4 of the Act for
\n    that he did unlawfully act in contravention of Regulation 8  <\/p>\n
    contained in the first Schedule annexed thereto by delivering  <\/p>\n
    a public address not in accordance with the rules of the said
\n    Park   but   contrary   to   the   Statute,   and   it   was   inter   alia
\n    contended on his behalf that in the absence of distinct words  <\/p>\n
    in the statute stating that the rules would be operative in the
\n    interval   from   the   time   they   were   made   to   the   time   when  <\/p>\n
    Parliament   should   meet   next   or   if   Parliament   was   sitting <\/p>\n
    then   during   the   month   during   which   Parliament   had   an
\n    opportunity   of   expressing   its   opinion   upon   them,   no   rule  <\/p>\n
    made as supplementing the schedule could be operative so as
\n    to   render   a   person   liable   to   be   convicted   for   infraction
\n    thereof unless the same had been laid before the Parliament,  <\/p>\n
    it was held overruling the contention that the rules became  <\/p>\n
    effective from the time they were made and it could not be
\n    the intention of the Legislature that the laying of the rules  <\/p>\n
    before Parliament should be made a condition precedent to
\n    their acquiring validity and that they should not take effect
\n    until they are laid before and approved by Parliament.   If
\n    the Legislature had intended the same thing as in Section 4,  <\/p>\n
    that   the   rules   should   not   take   effect   until   they   had   the
\n    sanction of the Parliament, it would have expressly said so
\n    by employing negative language.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                               15<\/span><\/p>\n
                    In the light of the above observations, we further find <\/p>\n
    that   Sub   Section   (4)   of   Section   60   of   the  APMC   Act  must   be <\/p>\n
    considered to be as directory.\n<\/p>\n
                    Further, Rule 88 of the  APMC Rules  must be taken to <\/p>\n
    have come into force in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in <\/p>\n
    Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Bagban ..vs.. State of Gujarat;\n<\/p>\n
    AIR   1966   SC   385;   where   the   Constitution   Bench   has   observed   as <\/p>\n
    under:-\n<\/p>\n
          “The   rule   under   Act   22   of   1939   were   framed   by   the  <\/p>\n
          Provincial Government of Bombay in 1941.   At that time
\n          there was no Legislature in session, the Legislature having  <\/p>\n
          been suspended during the emergency arising out of World  <\/p>\n
          War II.  The session of the Bombay Legislative Assembly was
\n          convened for the first time after 1941 on May 20, 1946 and
\n          that session was prorogued on May 24, 1946.   The second  <\/p>\n
          session of the Bombay Legislative Assembly was convened on
\n          July 15, 1946 and that of the Bombay Legislative Council
\n          on   September   3,   1946   and   the   rules   were   placed   on   the  <\/p>\n
          Assembly Table in the second session before the Legislative
\n          Assembly on September 2, 1946 and before the Legislative
\n          Council on September 13, 1946.  Section 26 (5) of Bombay  <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                16<\/span><\/p>\n
          Act 22 of 1939 does not prescribe that the rules acquired
\n          validity only from the date on which they were placed before  <\/p>\n
          the Houses of Legislature.  The rules are valid from the date  <\/p>\n
          on which they are made under Section 26(1).  It is true that
\n          Legislature   has   prescribed   that   the   rules   shall   be   placed
\n          before   the   Houses   of   Legislature,   but   failure   to   place   the  <\/p>\n
          rules   before   the   Houses   of   Legislature   does   not   affect   the
\n          validity   of   the   rules,   merely   because   they   have   not   been  <\/p>\n
          placed before the Houses of the Legislature.   Granting that  <\/p>\n
          the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 26 by reason of
\n          the failure to place the rules before the Houses of Legislature  <\/p>\n
          were   violated,   we   are   of   the   view   that   sub-section   (5)   of
\n          Section   26   having   regard   to   the   purposes   for   which   it   is
\n          made,   and   in   the   context   in   which   it   occurs,   cannot   be  <\/p>\n
          regarded   as   mandatory.     (Emphasis   supplied).     The   rules  <\/p>\n
          have been in operation since the year 1941 and by virtue of
\n          Section 64 of the Gujarat Act 20 of 1964, they continue to  <\/p>\n
          remain in operation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    12.             We, thus, hold that Sub Section (4) of Section 60 of the <\/p>\n
    APMC Act is directory in regard to the laying rules before the House of <\/p>\n
    Legislature and that rule 88 of the  APMC Rules,  which provides for <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                17<\/span><\/p>\n
    questioning   an   election   by   way   of   election   petition,   has   come   into <\/p>\n
    force   on   13.08.2010   i.e.   the   date   of   its   publication   in   the   Official <\/p>\n
    Gazette.\n<\/p>\n
    13.              In this view of the matter, the petitioner must avail of <\/p>\n
    the   remedy   provided   by   rule   88   of   the  APMC   Rules.   We   are   not <\/p>\n
    inclined to entertain this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    However, in the extraordinary circumstances of the present case, we <\/p>\n
    direct that the election petition, if presented by the petitioner within a <\/p>\n
    period   of   seven   days   from   today,   shall   be   entertained   without   any <\/p>\n
    objection of delay.\n<\/p>\n
                     Rule discharged.  No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                     Authenticated   copy   of   this   order   be   supplied   to   the <\/p>\n
    learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
                                  JUDGE                                   JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n\n    kahale\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:28:46 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan vs Unknown on 23 September, 2010 Bench: S.A. Bobde, Mridula Bhatkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2851\/2010 Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan, aged 53 years, Occ. Agriculturist, r\/o at Post Waradh, Tah. Ralegaon, Dist. Yavatmal. …..PETITIONER …V E R S […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan vs Unknown on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan vs Unknown on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-26T06:14:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan vs Unknown on 23 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-26T06:14:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2905,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan vs Unknown on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-26T06:14:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan vs Unknown on 23 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan vs Unknown on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan vs Unknown on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-26T06:14:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan vs Unknown on 23 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-26T06:14:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010"},"wordCount":2905,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010","name":"Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan vs Unknown on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-26T06:14:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadashivrao-ganpatrao-mahajan-vs-unknown-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan vs Unknown on 23 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106212","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=106212"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106212\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}