JUDGMENT :- Petitioner, a Director of APMC, Babulgaon has challenged the order dated 10/7/2009 passed by the respondent No. 4 - District Deputy Registrar, Yeotmal on Application No.3/2009 moved by present respondent Nos.1 and 2 disqualifying him and further orders dated 30/9/2009 rejecting his Appeal No.2/2009 of respondent No.3 - the Divisional Joint Registrar, Amravati. Petitioner was later also elected as Chairman of respondent No.5 Agricultural Produce Market Committee. 2. Respondent NO.5 before this Court is the Agriculture Produce Market Committee i.e. APMC for short, and it is established under and regulated by Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967, (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules' for short). Results of elections of respondent No.5 APMC held on 27/4/2008 were declared on 3/5/2008 and in it present Petitioner was declared elected from constituency of Co-operative Societies i.e. one under S.13(1)(a) of the Act. Said constituency is meant for agriculturists only. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 then moved respondent No.4 for his disqualification pointing out that as he held broker's license, he was not agriculturist and not eligible for election in said constituency. District Deputy Registrar accepted their contention and disqualified Petitioner and that order has been maintained by Appellate Authority, i.e. respondent No.3. 3. Considering the nature of controversy, Writ Petition is heard finally with consent by making Rule, returnable forthwith. 4. I have heard Adv. De for Petitioner, Adv. Paliwal for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned AGP Shri. Khubalkar for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 5. Shri. De, learned counsel has invited attention to provisions of Rule 41 of the Rules to urge that in application invoking Rule 41(3) as filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 the disqualification sought was under Rule 41(2) and hence it was not maintainable. He further pointed out that certain disputed questions of facts are ignored and without any evidence in relation to the same, findings thereupon have been presumed against the Petitioner to order his disqualification. He states that application for renewal of broker' s license in year 2007-2008 ascribed to him was never moved by the Petitioner. He further states that appeal entering the name in voter's list of brokers was also not filed by him. He states that application for renewal of broker' s license in year 2007-2008 ascribed to him was never moved by the Petitioner. He further states that appeal entering the name in voter's list of brokers was also not filed by him. The Petitioner was not holding a valid broker's license and hence, he could not have been declared a non-agriculturist and disqualified to be elected from S.13(1) (a) constituency. Lastly, he points out that alleged license in his name could not have been transferred to his brother legally and hence, that factor has not been evaluated correctly by the authorities below. 6. Shri. Paliwal, learned counsel on the other hand points out the provisions of Rule 41(1)(k) to show that it also applies when incumbent is disqualified by the Act or the Rules. He has relied upon dictionary meaning of word "being" to show that Rule 41(1) uses both the words viz. "from becoming" and "from being". Rule 41(3) therefore according to him has been rightly applied here. He further urges that the documents on records clearly show the effort of Petitioner to get rid of his status as broker and no disputed questions of fact arise on that count. 7. Learned AGP Shri. Khubalkar for respondent Nos.3 and 4 has invited attention to relevant observations in impugned orders in the background of legal provisions to urge that no disputed facts arose and there is no merit in the challenge. 8. I have perused the records with the assistance of respective Counsel. Election of Petitioner from constituency under Section 13(1)(a) of Act is not in dispute and the requirement of being agriculturist therefor is also an admitted position. As per definition of "agriculturist" in Section 2(1)(b), a person holding broker's license is excluded from that definition and hence, he is not competent to represent Section 13(1)(a) constituency. Thus, if Petitioner holds such broker's license, he ceases to be an agriculturist for said constituency. Here, resolution no.5 passed in meeting dated 27/9/2008 of Board of Directors of APMC is not in dispute. Petitioner admittedly attended that meeting and vide resolution no.5(1) therein, broker's license standing in his name has been transferred to his brother Sandeep G. Thakre. If there was no broker's license in the name of Petitioner and he had never sought it or its renewal, it is clear that he would not have permitted such transfer. Petitioner admittedly attended that meeting and vide resolution no.5(1) therein, broker's license standing in his name has been transferred to his brother Sandeep G. Thakre. If there was no broker's license in the name of Petitioner and he had never sought it or its renewal, it is clear that he would not have permitted such transfer. Learned Counsel Shri. De's contention that provisions of Rule 6 in relation to renewal of license were not fulfilled also need to be noted only to comprehend the subsequent conduct of Petitioner. His contention that there is no provision for such transfer and it is illegal therefore is clearly by way of afterthought. Records also show that he applied to election officer for adding his name to broker's voters list on 5th February, 2008 mentioning that he possessed that license form 1/10/2005 to 30/9/2006 and then from 1/10/2006 to 31/10/2007. He has also tried to demonstrate his legal right for such enrollment in it. Argument that he did not move any such application or then appeal for that purpose was not filed by him and at his instance are also by way of afterthought. If he never sought renewal of said license for year 2008-2009, he could have produced the original license with him to show that it was not so renewed on 28/2/2009 by the APMC. On the contrary, record show the endorsement of renewal on his license and his own participation in meeting on 27/9/2008 when that renewed license was transferred to his brother. His malafides are also seen from the fact that on 5/8/2008 he applied to APMC for cancellation of his broker's license and this application is accepted by APMC on 27/9/2008. He has mentioned in this application that his broker's license is renewed for 2008 to 2009 i.e. for period from 1/10/2008 to 30/9/2009. All this material before lower authorities demonstrated the false stand of Petitioner and it conclusively established that he was holding a valid broker's license on the date of his election as agriculturist and was therefore not qualified to be elected form S.13(1)(a) constituency. It also reveals hollowness in plea of disputed question of facts being raised before this Court. Further contentions that as license was invalid no disqualification is attracted or then there is no provision for its transfer to brother, are equally misplaced here to warrant more consideration. 9. It also reveals hollowness in plea of disputed question of facts being raised before this Court. Further contentions that as license was invalid no disqualification is attracted or then there is no provision for its transfer to brother, are equally misplaced here to warrant more consideration. 9. Rule 41 (1) prescribes disqualification both "for being chosen as" and "for being", a member of APMC. Thus a person holding such disqualification can not aspire to be elected as also to continue as member. Clause "k" of this Rule takes within its sweep the disqualifications prescribed by the Act and the Rules. Distinction between "for being chosen as" and "for being" is apparent and I do not find it necessary to consult any dictionary for it. Rule 41(2) states that a person shall not be chosen as a member to represent trader's constituency or co-operative societies' constituency or village panchayat's constituency to represent agriculturist in certain other contingencies also. However, it is apparent that as Petitioner is elected under Section 13(1)(a) and is not an agriculturist, this provision which prescribe additional disqualifications "for being chosen as", is not relevant here. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 41 empowers respondent No.4 - District Deputy Registrar to decide dispute as to disqualification falling only under sub-rule 1 thereof. Here, it is clear that disqualification found is not under subrule (2) but under Rule 41 (I) only. Though before respondent No.4, parties have pointed out sub-rules 1 and 2 both, said authority has rightly in its own observations correctly considered Rule 41(1)(k) only. The said authority has thereafter incorrectly mentioned that Petitioner was elected through cooperative societies' constituency and applied Rule 41(2) (ii). But again in concluding part it has relied upon Rule 41(1)(k). In operative part it has referred to only Rule 41(1) and (3) Respondent No.3, Divisional Joint Registrar has expressly overruled the objection of Petitioner in this respect. Even before this Court, initially Adv. De had begun his arguments as if Petitioner was elected form cooperative societies' constituency and when he was confronted with election results, matter was required to be adjourned to enable him to verify the facts. It is thus clear that Petitioner has been elected from Section 13(1)(a) constituency and has been rightly held disqualified in view of Rule 41(1)(k) under sub-rule 3 thereof. It is thus clear that Petitioner has been elected from Section 13(1)(a) constituency and has been rightly held disqualified in view of Rule 41(1)(k) under sub-rule 3 thereof. Reference to Rule 41(2) here by respondent No.4 is an obvious error and Petitioner does not stand to gain out of it. 10. With the result, no case is made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Petition dismissed with total costs quantified at Rs.12,000/-. Petitioner to pay costs of Rs.4,000/- to both respondent Nos.1 and 2, costs of Rs.4,000/- to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and costs of Rs. 4,000/- to respondent No.5 APMC. If costs are not paid same can be recovered as per Maharashtra Land Revenue Code or provisions of Act/Rules by the respective respondents. Rule discharged accordingly. Petition dismissed.