JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. Heard Shri S.M. Vaishnav, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination form on the ground that he has not submitted "no due certificate" alongwith the nomination form. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner states that "no due certificate" is furnished, however, it is disputed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Be that as it may, the above disputed question of fact is not relevant for deciding the controversy. 5. The learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that as per Section 10(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, if the proposed candidate is in arrears of any kind due to the Municipal Corporation and fails to pay the arrears within three months from receipt of notice about it, then the proposed candidate incurs disqualification for being elected as councillor or being councillor. 6. The provisions of Section 10(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act reads as follows : "10. Disqualification for being a councillor - (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 13 and 404, a person shall be disqualified for being elected and for being a councillor, if such person (h) fails to pay arrears of any kind due to the Corporation by him otherwise than as a trustee, within three months after a special notice in this behalf has been served on him by the Commissioner." The above provision does not enable the Returning Officer to come to the conclusion that the proposed candidate is defaulter if the proposed candidate fails to submit "no due certificate" alongwith the nomination form. The learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has not been able to point out any provision which requires that the proposed candidate should submit "no due certificate" alongwith the nomination form. There is nothing on record to show that inspite of demand notice served on the petitioner by the Commissioner, the petitioner has failed to pay the arrears due to the Corporation as contemplated by Section 10(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. The rejection of the nomination form of the petitioner on the ground that he has not submitted the "no due certificate", is per se illegal and unsustainable. The rejection of the nomination form of the petitioner on the ground that he has not submitted the "no due certificate", is per se illegal and unsustainable. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the symbols are allotted and this Court should not interfere with the election process at this stage. As per the election programme declared by the State Election Commission, the symbols are to be allotted on 08-02-2017 i.e. today from 11:00 a.m. onwards. It cannot be said that there is any impediment in the way of the respondent which disables him from allotting symbol to the petitioner as the process of allotment of the symbols continues till office timing on 08-02-2017. I am conscious that this Court should be loath in passing the order as proposed in the present petition, however, as I find that if the nomination form of the petitioner is accepted and symbol is allotted to him, there will not be any interference in the election programme, as argued by the learned Advocate for the respondent. Moreover, if the grievance of the petitioner is not considered and redressed at this stage, it will amount to precipitating the illegality committed by the Election Officer which may frustrate the statutory right of the petitioner to contest the election. 7. Hence, the following order : (i) The impugned order is set aside. (ii) The respondent No.1 is directed to accept the nomination form of the petitioner. (iii) The respondent No.1 shall take further consequential necessary steps in the matter including allotment of symbol to the petitioner. 8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. 9. The respondent No.1 to act on the authenticated copy of the judgment given to the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.