JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shelke, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Remaining respondents are absent though served through paper publication as well as by displaying of notice on the notice board of the respondent No.2. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the contesting parties. 3. This petition questions the legality and correctness of the order of the District Judge, dated 7/2/2017, holding that the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Rules, 1961 and, therefore, her nomination paper was rightly rejected by the Returning Officer. 4. On perusal of Rule 16(2), it becomes clear that a person who signs as a proposer must be the one whose name is entered in the list of voters for the electoral college for which the candidate is nominated. In other words, the proposer must be registered as a voter from the same electoral college from which the candidate is interested to contest the election. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the fact that the proposer of the petitioner was a voter of electoral college different from the electoral college from which the petitioner proposed to stand as a candidate. Therefore, I do not see any illegality, arbitrariness in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is dismissed with costs. Rule is discharged.