JUDGMENT 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By the present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge order dated 25.4.2008, made by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, confirming order dated 17.3.2008, made by the Additional Collector, Amravati, who held that the election of the petitioners to the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch respectively was illegal and respondent Nos.4 and 5 were declared elected in the irrespective places. 3. The election to the post of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of village panchayat Shingori was scheduled to be held on 3.12.2007 and the nomination forms were required to be submitted by respective candidates between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on that day. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted their respective nomination forms for the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch at 11:15 a.m., while the petitioners submitted their nomination forms at 1:40 p.m.. During scrutiny, objection was raised by respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the nomination forms of the petitioners on the ground that they were filed beyond the time limit prescribed. The Election Officer overruled the objection and accepted the nomination forms of the petitioners in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Krishna Wakekar...Versus...Chief Exe. Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, reported in 1965 Mh.L.J. Note-15. The election was thereafter held in which the petitioners were declared elected. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 therefore, filed election dispute under Section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before the Additional Collector, Amravati, who held that the election officer had wrongly interpreted the judgment of this Court and thus had wrongly accepted the nomination forms of the petitioners. He, therefore, accepted election dispute and set aside the election of the petitioners to the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. He further went ahead and declared that respondent Nos.4 and 5 were declared elected to the said posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. The petitioners filed appeal under Section 33 (5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The appellate authority confirmed the findings recorded by the Additional Collector and dismissed the appeal. This Court had issued notice for final disposal of this petition and also granted interim relief to the petitioners. 4. The petitioners filed appeal under Section 33 (5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The appellate authority confirmed the findings recorded by the Additional Collector and dismissed the appeal. This Court had issued notice for final disposal of this petition and also granted interim relief to the petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that Rule 9 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 clearly provides that no nomination form shall be rejected on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. According to him, the provision regarding time fixed for receiving nomination forms is only directory and not mandatory and therefore, the acceptance of nomination forms even beyond the prescribed time cannot be said to be illegal act. In support of his submissions he relied on two decisions of this Court reported in 1963 Mh.L.J. Note 84 and 1965 Mh.L.J. Note 15. He further argued that the provisions of Section 33 (5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act merely empower the Additional Collector to decide the validity of election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch and nothing more than that and therefore, the order made by the Additional Collector, declaring respondent Nos.4 and 5 elected in place of the petitioners is illegal. He relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Gawaji Alias Gawaja Sawleram Sarode...Versus...State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 1992 Mh.L.J. 294. 5. Per contra, Advocate Shri Kothale for respondent Nos.4 and 5 vehemently opposed the writ petition and argued that acceptance of nomination forms beyond prescribed time is a defect of substantial character and admittedly the petitioners had filed their nomination forms at 1:40 p.m. i.e. late by one hour and forty minutes as the outer limit was 12:00 p.m. He further argued that the orders made by the authorities below were correct, legal and proper in accordance with the Rules and the election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch was rightly set aside. Supporting the orders made by the authorities, declaring respondent Nos.4 and 5 as elected Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch in their place, he argued that the said order could well be justified because in the fray only petitioners and respondents had filed nomination forms and therefore, when the nomination forms of the petitioners were found to be invalid, the only course left open was to declare respondent Nos.4 and 5 as elected. 6. 6. Shri Khubalkar, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 supported the impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the rival parties at length and also perused the impugned orders as well as the decisions cited before me. While dealing with the first point as to whether submission of nomination forms beyond the prescribed time limit would be a defect of substantial character or not, I have already taken view in Writ Petition No.3553/2008, decided on 21.8.2008 that the Supreme Court in the case of Harjit Singh Mann...Versus...S. Umrao Singh and others, reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 701, paragraph Nos.7 and 8, has clearly held that late submission of nomination forms beyond the prescribed time limit is a defect of substantial character. Following the said decision of the Supreme Court, I have held that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna Wakekar...Versus...Chief Exe. Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, reported in 1965, Mh.L.J. Note 15 is not binding on me and what is binding on me is the Supreme Court judgment. In the instant case, following the said judgment of the Supreme Court, I will have to hold that the judgment in the case of Adbul Gani Haji Mohamad...Versus...Collector, Akola, reported in 1963 Mh.L.J. Note 84 is not binding on me, as the Honb'le Supreme Court has taken contrary view. To reiterate, I quote paragraph Nos.7 and 8 in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harjit Singh Mann...Versus...S. Umrao Singh and others, reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 701, which read as under : 7. ........It is therefore the requirement of that sub-section that, inter alia, the nomination paper shall be delivered to the Returning Officer between the hours of eleven o'clock in the forenoon and three o'clock in the afternoon, so that a nomination paper delivered after three o'clock in the afternoon cannot be said to comply with that provision of Section 33, Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Act, which provides for the examination of the nomination papers for the purpose of deciding all objections made to any nomination, requires that the Returning Officer shall reject any nomination paper on the grounds mentioned in the sub-section. We are concerned with ground No. (b) which provides as follows :- (b) that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of Section 33 or Section 34. So as there was failure to comply with that provision of Section 33 which required the delivery of the nomination paper between the hours of eleven o'clock in the forenoon and three o'clock in the afternoon, the Returning Officer had really no option but to reject the nomination paper. 8. .........We have no hesitation therefore in taking the view that the failure to comply with the requirement that the nomination papers shall be delivered between the hours of eleven o'clock in the forenoon and three o'clock in the afternoon is mandatory and the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the nomination paper in question because of its breach. 8. Repeating the said view, I hold here that submission of nomination forms beyond the prescribed time limit is a defect of substantial character. Therefore, the impugned orders made by the authorities below on that score will have to be upheld. Hence, I confirm the orders setting aside the election of the petitioners as Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. 9. Coming to the second point involved in this petition, it would be appropriate to quote Section 33 (5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, which reads as under : Section 33 (5) :- In the event of a dispute arising as to the validity of the election of a Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch under sub-section (1) the officer presiding over such meeting or any member may, within fifteen days from the date of the election, refer the dispute to the Collector for decision. An appeal against the decision of the Collector may, within fifteen days from the date of such decision, be filed before the Commissioner, whose decision shall be final. The Collector or Commissioner shall give his decision as far as possible within sixty days of the receipt of the reference, or as the case may be, appeal. 10. Perusal of the above provision clearly shows that Collector has been given a power by the legislature to decide the validity of election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. Thus, Sub-Section 5 of Section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act does not go ahead and empower the Collector to declare any other person as elected for any reason whatsoever. 10. Perusal of the above provision clearly shows that Collector has been given a power by the legislature to decide the validity of election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. Thus, Sub-Section 5 of Section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act does not go ahead and empower the Collector to declare any other person as elected for any reason whatsoever. In the case of Gawaji Alias Gawaja Sawleram Sarode (Supra) while comparing the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act and Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, this Court made the following observations. 9. ...........Therefore, there was a power entrusted with the District Court wherein the petitioner challenged election under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act to declare petitioner or any other candidate elected in case it is found that he has received sufficient number of valid votes. I do not find such a provision in the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. If an election is set aside, two courses are open. Either the seat can be filled in by a fresh election or the other candidate left in the field who has secured second highest votes can be declared to be elected. Which of the course is to be provided, is the arena of the legislature and legislature which has made specific provision opting for the second course in the Representation of the People Act by way of section 84 and in sub-section 10 of section 21 of Maharashtra Municipalities Act, has not made an identical provision in the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. It appears that it has favoured a fresh election when the election of a candidate is set aside. 11. In my opinion, similar is the provision of Section 33 (5) of the Act, which does not provide for such declaration being made by the Additional Collector. Thus, in the face of the pari materia provision, I have no hesitation in accepting the statement of law made by this Court in the aforesaid case. Consequently, I hold that the provisions of Section 33 (5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act do not empower the Additional Collector to declare respondent Nos.4 and 5 as elected Sarpanch of village Shingori. Consequently, I hold that the provisions of Section 33 (5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act do not empower the Additional Collector to declare respondent Nos.4 and 5 as elected Sarpanch of village Shingori. As a sequel to his finding that the election of the petitioners was illegal and though respondent Nos.4 and 5 were the only remaining candidates in the said election as held by him, the only course left open for the Additional Collector therefore was to order holding of fresh elections to the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. In the result, I make the following order. 12. Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders declaring election of the petitioners as Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of village Shingori are confirmed. The impugned orders declaring respondent Nos.4 and 5 as elected to the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of village Shingori in place of the petitioners are quashed and set aside. Instead, now the Additional Collector shall give directions holding of fresh election to the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch expeditiously and in any case election be held within a period of eight weeks from today. 13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.