Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the notification dated 22.5.1999 as contained in the last page of annexure-18 whereby the name of the petitioner being elected from the Traders Community in the Marketing Board has been denotified. 3. The admitted position remains that the petitioner has got a valid licence for the purpose of running a business in the market area, namely, Mussallapur Market Area and he along with others had filed nomination papers and after due contest the petitioner has been elected as a member of the Marketing Committee as notified by annexure-5 dated 6.4.1999. The name of petitioner appears at serial no. 10 in that notification and it also appears that he was elected after due contest. Till date of notification there was no objection from anybody else, neither by any elector nor by any members or the persons who were on the fray to the effect that the petitioner be denotified to be a member of the commit as he having a contract with the Marketing Committee itself. The disqualification comes under Section 10 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act. Sub-section 10 (f) of the Act provides that a person is disqualified to be a member of Market Committee who has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any contract with, by or on behalf of the Market Committee. According to the petitioner, after 1995 he had never worked as a contractor nor acted in relation to contractual matter. It appears that the petitioner had come up before this Court on earlier occasion also. But these are not the matters here for consideration. Here the only question is that even if it is found that the petitioner was suffering from disqualification as contained in annexure- 18 under the provisions of Section 10 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act then also when no objection has been raised at the time of filing of nomination paper he was allowed to contest the election and then being elected and gazette notification was there to that effect then there is no scope under any provision of the Act or the rules framed thereunder to denotify the name of the petitioner as has been done as contained in annexure-18. For getting a person elected to be omitted from election or the result of the election can only be challenged by filing an election petition before the Munsif as per Rule 43 of the Rules framed thereunder. There is also provision for appeal against the order being passed on such election petition. But without going through that process the Market Committee or anybody else has got no power to denotify the name of the petitioner when he has been elected duly through proper process of election. In that way, when there is nothing in the counter- affidavit also that any election petition has been filed or any declaration has been made by the Munsif or the Appellate Court regarding setting aside the election of the petitioner then there is no question of denotification as has been done by the notification dated 22.5.1999 as contained in annexure-18. On this question of law learned counsel for the Market Committee cannot say anything. 4. In that way, this writ petition is allowed. The portion of the notification as contained in annexure-18 dated 22.5.1999 concerning the petitioners denotification is hereby quashed. 5. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.