JUDGMENT Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 28/1/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order passed by the Additional Collector came to be rejected. 3. The petitioner was a candidate for the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Virahit, Taluq Murtizapur, District Akola. The election for the said post was to be held on 29/8/2010 and the time for filling nominations was between 11 A.M. and 12 0' clock in the afternoon. It is an undisputed position that the petitioner filed her nomination at 1.30 P.M., which was accepted by the Election Officer. The respondent no. 1 herein, who was also a candidate, filed his nomination at 11.55 A.M. whereas one other person, who was a candidate for Upa-Sarpanch, filed her nomination at 11.50 A.M. Though the nomination was filed by the petitioner at 1.30 P.M., the Election Officer found the same in order and subsequently, the election to the post of Sarpanch was held wherein the petitioner was elected by a margin of 5:2 vis-a-vis respondent no. 1 herein. 4. After the petitioner was declared elected, the respondent no. 1 herein made an application to the Additional Collector under Section 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and challenged the election, inter alia, on the ground that the procedure prescribed for the same as found in the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 was not adhered to inasmuch as nomination form of the petitioner was accepted at 1.30 P.M. To the said application, the petitioner filed her reply. The said application was considered by the Additional Collector, Akola, who by his order dated 16/10/2010 allowed the said application primarily on the ground that there was violation of the Election Rules in the acceptance of the nomination form of the petitioner at 1.30 P.M. The Additional Collector accordingly set aside the election of the petitioner to the post of Sarpanch held on 29/8/2010. 5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16/10/2010, the petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 33(5) of the said Act. The main ground urged in the Appeal was that respondent no. 1 herein had not taken any objection to the petitioner contesting the election to the post of Sarpanch. 5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16/10/2010, the petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 33(5) of the said Act. The main ground urged in the Appeal was that respondent no. 1 herein had not taken any objection to the petitioner contesting the election to the post of Sarpanch. The said Appeal as indicated above came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 28/1/2011. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made before the Authorities, i.e. respondent no. 1 was disentitled to question the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch having taken no objection to her nomination and having participated in the said election. 7. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 that the Election Rules for the post of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch are mandatory in nature and non-adherence to the mandate of the said Rules would amount to vitiation of the election process. In terms of the said Rules, the ejection programme for the post of Sarpanch was announced wherein the nominations were to be filed between 11 A.M. and 12 o'clock in the afternoon. Admittedly, the nomination form filed by the petitioner at 1.30 P.M. was beyond the stipulated time and hence, acceptance of such nomination was in breach and violation of the said Rule as being beyond the stipulated period. 8. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Sau. Chandrakalabai w/o Giridharrao Khangar and another vs. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others (2009 (1) ALL MR 46) wherein the learned Judge has held that the requirement to file nomination within the specified time is mandatory and a breach thereof would amount to defect of a substantial character. 9. In the light of the above, there is no merit in the challenge to the orders made in the above petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. 10. In the light of the fact that the impugned orders have been confirmed, the Authorities are directed to hold a fresh election for the post of Sarpanch by announcing a programme for the same in terms of the said Election Rules. Petition dismissed.