D.D. SINHA:- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the respective counsel. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the impugned communication dated 12-03-2009 issued by the Returning Officer, whereby the nomination form of the petitioner for contesting the election of the Member of Ward No.2, Gram Panchayat, Alegaon Tq. Patur Dist. Akola, came to be rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Respondent No.3Tahsildar has declared election programme for holding bye-election for the post of Member, Gram Panchayat, Alegaon on 21-02-2009. The date of filing of nomination was 09-03-2009 and the petitioner has submitted nomination form on the same day, by first depositing the Gram Panchayat Taxes due and payable in the Office of Gram Panchayat. On 12-03-2009, the scrutiny of nomination form had taken place and the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner, in view of Rule 11 and 12 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (in short "the said Act"). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of the Tahsildar is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 14(h) of the said Act since the Gram Panchayat.at no point of time, issued demand notice for payment of Gram Panchayat taxes. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in the instant case though the election programme is already declared, the election is scheduled on 25th March 2009, and direction sought by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition does not either interrupt, disturb the electi"n process and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Court reported in 2007(6) ALL MR 773 (Sudbakar Misal Vs. State of Maharashtra and others), the petition may be allowed and direction may be given to the Returning Officer to accept the nomination paper of the petitioner and complete other formalities and permit the petitioner to participate in the election which is scheduled on 25th March, 2009. 6. Shri. Amit Balpande, Adv. for Respondent No.4 - Gram Panchayat does not dispute the fact that the Gram Panchayat has not issued any bill of demand to the petitioner for payment ofGTam Panchayat taxes and the petitioner paid the taxes on 09-03-2009, before filing of the nomination form. 7. Mr. Nitin Sambre, learned Govt. 6. Shri. Amit Balpande, Adv. for Respondent No.4 - Gram Panchayat does not dispute the fact that the Gram Panchayat has not issued any bill of demand to the petitioner for payment ofGTam Panchayat taxes and the petitioner paid the taxes on 09-03-2009, before filing of the nomination form. 7. Mr. Nitin Sambre, learned Govt. Pleader also does not dispute the factual aspect of the matter, however, has submitted that the Returning Officer passed the impugned order on the complaint made by one Totaram Kapkar against the petitioner, for non-payment of Gram Panchayat taxes. The Govt. Pleader has submitted that the election programme after bye-election has already been declared. 8. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel and perused the provisions of Section 14(1)(h) of the Act as well as explanation 2, which reads thus: "14: Disqualifications: - (1) No person shall be a member of Gram Panchayat continue as such, who - (h) fails to pay any tax or fee due to Panchayat (or) fee due to Panchayat (or) the Zilla Parish ad within three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee is demanded and a bill for the purpose is duly served on him; or Explanation 2 - For the purpose of clause (h), reads thus: (i) a person shall not be deemed to be disqualified if he has paid the amount of any tax or fee due, prior to the day prescribed for the nomination of candidates; " The plain reading of the provisions of Section 14(1)(h) makes it evident that the question of disqualification arises if any tax or fee due to Panchayat has not been paid within three months from the date on which such amount of tax or fee is demanded. 9. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Panchayat has not issued any demand notice for payment of taxes and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case provisions of sub-sec. (h) are not at all attracted. It is not in dispute that in the Respondent Gram Panchayat has never served the demand notice on the petitioner at any point of time and the petitioner suomotu paid the Gram Panchayat taxes on 09-03-2009 and after making the said payment, filed the nomination paper. (h) are not at all attracted. It is not in dispute that in the Respondent Gram Panchayat has never served the demand notice on the petitioner at any point of time and the petitioner suomotu paid the Gram Panchayat taxes on 09-03-2009 and after making the said payment, filed the nomination paper. It is in view of these peculiar facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not incurred any disqualification as per Section 14(1)(h) of the said Act. On the other hand, explanation (2) provides protection even to a person from incurring disqualification who pays the amount of tax or fee though after three months from the date of service of demand notice but day prior to the date prescribed for nomination of the candidate. The petitioner undoubtedly stands on a much better footing and, therefore, the impugned communication issued by the Returning Officer is bad-in-law. 10. It is well settled that once the election programme is declared, the Court should be very slow in showing indulgence which will result in disturbing election process and causes inconvenience and hardship. At the same time in a democracy the democratic rights of the people cannot be ignored and need to be protected if it is possible to do so, without disturbing the process of election to serve the democratic process. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12-03-2009 passed by the Returning Officer and direct Respondent No.3 to accept the nomination form of the petitioner and complete all the formalities as per election programme and the procedure applicable in this regard and permit the petitioner to participate in the election which is scheduled on 25-03-2009. 12. Rule made absolute in above terms. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.