JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Heard Shri N.H. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.D. Sapkal, learned A.G.P., for the State. 2. Petitioner wanted to contest the election of the President of the Municipal Council, Erandol which took place on 11-12-1997. The office of the President was reserved for Other Backward Class woman. The petitioner, though allegedly belonging to the Other Back Ward Class, was elected from a seat reserved for woman general. On that count, her nomination paper was rejected. Petitioner did not file an appeal as was contemplated under sub-section (3) of section 51 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 nor she presented any dispute before the State Government under sub-section (5) of section 51 of the said Act. 3.Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the provision of appeal made in sub-section (3-A) of section 51 is redundent inasmuch as it is not possible for anybody to avail this facility. Normally, the election programme for the elections of the President of Municipal Council is a process which is completed in a single day. Nominations are to be filed in about two hours duration and immediately thereafter following scrutiny, elections take place. Therefore, though sub-section (3-A) provides a remedy of appeal against acceptance or rejection of nomination paper to the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, it is difficult, though not impossible, to avail this remedy. The Divisional Commissioners have been entrusted with the duties of the Regional Director of Municipal Administration. A person wishing to challenge the rejection or acceptance of a nomination paper in an election which is taking place at a remote taluka place far away from the divisional headquarters; would not be able to file an appeal before the Commissioner and get it decided by him after adopting due procedure before completion of the election. Though sub-section (3-A) provides that an appeal will have to be filed within 48 hours, the provision does not specify the time within which the appeal is to be decided by the Regional Director of Municipal Administration. Section 51 also does not indicate that there shall be left enough time between filing of the nomination, its scrutiny and the actual voting so that an appeal could be filed and decided within that time. Therefore, none can avail the remedy provided under sub-section (3-A) of section 51. Section 51 also does not indicate that there shall be left enough time between filing of the nomination, its scrutiny and the actual voting so that an appeal could be filed and decided within that time. Therefore, none can avail the remedy provided under sub-section (3-A) of section 51. 4.We appreciate the point raised by Shri Patil. It is true that there is some anomaly left in the provision. Though an appellate remedy has been provided, it has not been specifically said that till the appeal is decided, further process of election shall not take place and the rules do not provide for a specific time gap between the scrutiny of the nominations and the actual voting which would be sufficient for decision of the appeal. 5.We direct the State Government to take appropriate steps to get this anomaly removed and if it wants to make the provision of appeal against rejection or acceptance of the nomination paper in an election to the office of the President of a Municipal Council, move the Legislature with appropriate amendment to make the provision meaningful. 6.Another submission made by Shri Patil is that the remedy of raising a dispute by reference to the State Government provided under section 51(5) is not an efficacious remedy. Firstly, there is no time limit prescribed within which the State Government has to decide the reference and secondly, the State Government is likely to take a partitioned view since the elections to the office of President of Municipal Councils are fought on political planks. We cannot subscribe to the view. Whenever a statutory appeal has been provided to the State Government and the rules of business prescribe that a Minister in office shall exercise the powers of the State Government in deciding the statutory appeal, the Minister exercising these powers has a duty to be faithful to the true spirit of the Legislation and decide the matter as a quasi judicial authority. He cannot act with political bias while deciding the matter. It is inherent in the democratic system that a Minister acting as a quasi judicial authority must act raising himself above the party considerations. We have nothing to presume that this will not happen in cases wherein he is deciding a dispute under sub-section (5) of section 51. He cannot act with political bias while deciding the matter. It is inherent in the democratic system that a Minister acting as a quasi judicial authority must act raising himself above the party considerations. We have nothing to presume that this will not happen in cases wherein he is deciding a dispute under sub-section (5) of section 51. 7.It was also apprehended before us that the word reference occurring in sub-section (5) of section 51 may be interpreted to mean that some authority has to refer the dispute to the State Government. We do not see that the scheme of section 51 any way contemplates such a reference by any other authority. The word reference occurred in this sub-section has a simple meaning that any dispute shall be raised and submitted for the decision. Any person who wants to dispute the validity of the election of the President of a Municipal Council can submit such a dispute to the State Government under sub-section (5). It is only in this sense the word reference is used in this sub-section. 8.Shri Patil, learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Kasambhai F. Ghanchi v. Chandubhai D. Rajput)1, reported in 1998(1) Bom.C.R. 679 (S.C.) and contended that what was interpreted earlier by the Supreme Court in the case of (Saraswati Devi v. Sita Devi)2, reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 347 is no more a good law and anybody who belongs to the category is entitled to contest the election of President of the Municipal Council reserved for that category even though he is not elected from such reserved constituency. We are sure that the authorities exercising the statutory jurisdiction under sub-section (5) of section 51 will take into consideration the law of the land and will dispose such cases expeditiously. 9.With these observations, at the admission stage, we dispose of the writ petition. Interim orders passed by this Court, stand vacated. Petition dismissed. *****