Judgment : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2.By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 23rd January 2008 rendered in appeal No.19/2008 by the District Deputy Registrar, (Co-operatives) and District Returning Officer. 3.The election programme was published for election of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Dhadgaon. The candidates had filled in required forms as per the election programme. Undisputedly, the petitioner is member from Other Backward Category and so also respondent No.2 belongs to Other Backward Category (OBC). Both of them had filed their nominations for the seat reserved for OBC. The nomination of the respondent No.2 was rejected by the Returning Officer. The nomination form of the petitioner was, however, accepted by the Returning Officer as the valid one. There were only two candidates from the OBC category and the petitioner would have been so declared as elected candidate for the election of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Dhadgaon. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No.2 -Smt. Shobhabai preferred an appeal (Appeal No.19/2008) against the order of Returning Officer. She challenged acceptance of the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that he was not an agriculturist and was therefore, ineligible to contest the election. She asserted that the petitioner is a grocery shop keeper and has no concern, whatsoever, with the activities of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee. She asserted that his nomination paper deserves to be rejected. Hence, she urged to disallow the nomination of the petitioner. The learned District Deputy Registrar, Co-operatives Sanstha, Nandurbar allowed the appeal and directed rejection of nomination of the petitioner. The learned Deputy Registrar held that family land of the petitioner is situated in Madhya Pradesh and therefore, he cannot be regarded as an eligible candidate to participate in the election of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee. Hence, the petition. 4.Heard counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 5.The question of significance involved in this petition is whether nomination of a candidate can be rejected on the ground that his agricultural land is situated outside the area of operation of the concerned market committee. In this context, it would be useful to refer definition of the word "agriculturist" as used in Section 2(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short "the MAPM Act"). In this context, it would be useful to refer definition of the word "agriculturist" as used in Section 2(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short "the MAPM Act"). The definition of word "agriculturist" clearly includes a person who is engaged in the production or growth of agricultural produce which has been processed. The definition of expression "agriculturist" is not restricted, in any manner, to mean the agriculturist having land within the area of operation of the agricultural market committee. There is nothing in the Act to indicate that the agriculturists, who have agricultural land/'s outside the area of the operation of the market committee, are excluded from participation in the election of such market committee. What emerges from the record is that the petitioner owns an agricultural land situated at village Rakhibujurg (Dist. Badwani). It appears that the Sarpanch of village Dhadgaon issued the necessary certificate about the status of the petitioner as an agriculturist. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is inhabitant of village Toranmal. It may be noticed that village Toranmal is situated in the proximity of the boundary of Madya Pradesh. Mr. Patil P.R., learned advocate for the petitioner, makes a statement that village Rakhibujurg is situated at a distance of 15-20 k.m. away from the village Toranmal though the said village is situated in the State of Madya Pradesh. There is no legal embargo on rights of the petitioner to sell his agricultural produce at the market committee of Dhadgaon. Obviously, it cannot be said that he is unconcerned with the activities of the market committee of which he wanted to become elected member. 6.It is well settled that the Court cannot read something in the provisions of the law which is not specifically provided for. The Court cannot read the prohibition from filing nomination by the person like petitioner on the ground that his agricultural land ought to be within the operational area of the market committee so as to make him eligible to file the nomination paper. The impugned order appears to have been rendered without due consideration of the definition of the word "agriculturist". The impugned order appears to have been rendered without due consideration of the definition of the word "agriculturist". The scheme of the elections as envisaged under the Rules under the Chapter 3 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing ( Regulation) Rules, 1967 would show that the three constituencies viz (a) Co-operative Society's Constituency; (b) Village Panchayat's Constituency; and (c) Trader's Constituency are eligible for representations. The voters list is drawn as per Rule 36 and the same is published before the declaration of the elections. The disqualifications for candidates are enumerated in Rule 38. It is important to note that sub-rule (1) of Rule 38 clearly envisaged that every person who is agriculturist and who is residing in the market area and is not less than 21 years of age on the relevant date would be eligible to contest the election from the concerned constituency. The petitioner was a candidate from the class of agriculturist's to be elected from the co-operative society's constituency. He is an agriculturist and does reside in the market area. The rule 38 does not provide that the agriculturist must have his agricultural land within the operational area of the market committee. It is pertinent to note that sub-rule (3) of Rule 38 makes it amply clear that if any question arises regarding the status of a person as an agriculturist, the matter shall be decided by the Director as provided by sub-section (2). Needless to say, such a question ought to have been referred to the Director and it could not have been considered by the District Deputy Registrar (Co-operatives). 7.The appeal memo presented by the respondent No.2 -Smt. Shobhabai would show that she did not challenge rejection of her nomination paper. What she challenged before the District Deputy Registrar (Co-operatives) was the acceptance of the nomination paper of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 -Smt. Shobhabai was out of the fray when her nomination paper was rejected. In my opinion, she could have challenged the rejection of her nomination paper. Still, however, she could not have been permitted to challenge the acceptance of the nomination of the petitioner. For, she was no more candidate to the election within the meaning of Rule 51 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules 1967. In my opinion, she could have challenged the rejection of her nomination paper. Still, however, she could not have been permitted to challenge the acceptance of the nomination of the petitioner. For, she was no more candidate to the election within the meaning of Rule 51 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules 1967. The expression "any candidate" as used in Rule 51 would mean, the candidate who is aggrieved due to rejection or acceptance of the nomination paper. The nomination paper of respondent No.2 - Smt. Shobhabai was rejected, because of the rejection of the nomination paper, she was eligible to challenge the order to such extent. However, when she was no more candidate and did not wish to stake claim as an eligible candidate in the election, there was no warrant to entertain her appeal. Even assuming that the appeal could be entertained and such a question could be gone into then also the impugned order is quite arbitrary and perverse inasmuch as nomination of the petitioner has been rejected for the reasons which are outside the ambit of the Rules 34, 51, 45 and 38. The petitioner need not incur disqualification within the meaning of Section 41. Only disqualification for a person who seeks representation from agriculturist's constituency is as enumerated in Section 41(2)(ii). A person whose main income is not from the agricultural source may be disqualified. It is nobody's case that the petitioner's main income does not depend on agricultural resources. The respondent No.2 failed to prove that the petitioner is proprietor of a grocery shop. Considering all these aspects, I have no hesitation in holding that the nomination of the petitioner has been erroneously and arbitrarily rejected by the learned Deputy Registrar (Co-operatives). 8.In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Rule is made absolute. Candidature of the petitioner is valid and the Returning officer to take further steps accordingly.