Bombay High Court

RAMNATH GAHININATH GOLHARversusTHE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR SUGAR AHILYANAGAR AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The rejection of the petitioner’s nomination was valid as there is no exemption for VJNT candidates under the bye‑law, and the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Ramnath Gahininath Golhar, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his nomination by the Returning Officer, who found him non‑compliant with Clause 26(1)(F)(1) of the Sugar Industry Bye‑laws requiring a candidate to have supplied sugarcane for at least three of the preceding five years. The petitioner argued that, as a VJNT (VJNT) candidate, he was exempt from this requirement. The court examined the relevant bye‑laws, noting that Clause 28 deals with qualifications of a Director, while Clause 26(1)(F)(1) imposes the sugarcane‑supply condition without any caste‑ or category‑based exemption. No evidence was presented to show that VJNT candidates are exempt from this condition. Consequently, the court held that the Returning Officer’s rejection was proper and that the appellate authority correctly affirmed it. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a VJNT candidate is exempt from the sugarcane‑supply requirement under Bye‑law Clause 26(1)(F)(1).
Whether the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s nomination for non‑compliance with the bye‑law.
Whether the appellate authority correctly upheld the Returning Officer’s decision.

Subjects

election law
nomination rejection
sugarcane supply requirement
bye‑laws
VJNT candidate
returning officer
appellate authority

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:23996
                                          (1)                      945-wp-6031-2026.odt



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 6031 OF 2026

                               RAMNATH GAHININATH GOLHAR
                                            VERSUS
                 THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR SUGAR AHILYANAGAR
                                          AND OTHERS
                                               ...
               Mr. Ravindra V. Gore and Mr. Yogesh S. Thorat, Advocate for the
               Petitioner.
               Mr. K. S. Patil, AGP for Respondents-State.
               Mr. V. H. Dighe, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
               Mr. H. D. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                                               ...
                                         CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                         DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026.
               P.C.:-

               1.     The petitioner impugns order dated 12.06.2026 passed by

               respondent no.1 Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Ahilyanagar

               Region in Appeal No.6/2026, thereby upholding order dated

               03.06.2026 passed by respondent no.2 Returning Officer rejecting

               petitioner’s objection at the election of respondent no.3-Karkhana.


               2.     The petitioner submitted his nomination.      The Returning

               Officer on scrutiny of nomination and on the basis of information

               supplied by Karkhana observed that petitioner has not complied

               with provisions of bye-laws, particularly Clause No.26(1)(F)(1).


               3.     The learned Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that

               petitioner being VJNT candidate was not required to comply

               condition regarding supply of sugarcane for atleast three years out

               of five years preceding election in terms of bye-laws.        However,
                               (2)                   945-wp-6031-2026.odt



there is nothing to support aforesaid condition. The bye-law no.28

provides for qualifications of Director.     Bye-laws no.26(1)(F)(1)

requires that sugarcane shall be supplied for atleast three years

out of five years preceding election.     There is no caste/category

based exemption for member, as sought to be contended on behalf

of petitioner. Nothing is brought on record to show exemption to

VJNT candidate from condition to supply sugarcane.


4.      In result, rejection of nomination by Returning Officer cannot

be faulted.          The Appellate Authority has rightly considered

relevant aspects of matter and affirmed order of Returning Officer,

thereby rejecting petitioner’s nomination.      Hence, Writ Petition

stands dismissed.



                                        (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                 JUDGE
Devendra/June-2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…