RAMNATH GAHININATH GOLHAR v. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR SUGAR AHILYANAGAR AND OTHERS
WP/6031/2026 · 2026-06-17
Shri S G Chapalgaonkar
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2743 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2743 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
(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, 2026:BHC-AUG:23996
(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