The list of voters for a village panchayat election is prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act and Rule 3 of the Election Rules, 1959. The electoral roll of the Bombay Legislative Assembly is not automatically the list of voters for the panchayat election. The officer appointed under Rule 3(2) has to maintain a list of voters for each ward of the village and carry out corrections in the list as and when they are made in the electoral roll of the Bombay Legislative Assembly.

Headnote:
BOMBAY VILLAGE PANCHAYATS ACT - SECTION 12(1), 13(1), 13(2), 13(3) - ELECTION RULES, 1959 - RULE 3 - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 21, 23 - REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS RULES, 1960 - RULE 26, 27, 30 - ELECTION - LIST OF VOTERS - PREPARATION AND MAINTENANCE - CORRECTION OF ERRORS - DATE OF FIXATION - VALIDITY OF VOTES CAST BY PERSONS WHOSE NAMES WERE NOT IN THE LIST OF VOTERS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:

An election petition was filed challenging the election of three petitioners to the village panchayat on the grounds that (i) a supplementary list of 10 voters was wrongly rejected, (ii) three voters whose names were not in the list of voters were allowed to vote, and (iii) one voter whose name was wrongly entered in the voters list for another village was not allowed to vote. The Civil Judge set aside the election on all three grounds.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court set aside the order of the Civil Judge and declared that the three petitioners were validly elected. The Court held that: (i) The supplementary list of 10 voters was rightly rejected as it was not prepared and submitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act and Rule 3 of the Election Rules, 1959. (ii) The three voters whose names were not in the list of voters were validly allowed to vote as the presiding officer was satisfied that they were the persons entitled to vote under the entries in the voters list and no objection was raised by any candidate or agent. (iii) The exclusion of one voter whose name was wrongly entered in the voters list for another village did not affect the result of the election as the three petitioners had received a clear majority of votes.
Issues: 1. Whether the supplementary list of 10 voters was wrongly rejected? 2. Whether the three voters whose names were not in the list of voters were validly allowed to vote? 3. Whether the exclusion of one voter whose name was wrongly entered in the voters list for another village affected the result of the election?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the supplementary list of 10 voters was rightly rejected as it was not prepared and submitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act and Rule 3 of the Election Rules, 1959. The Court observed that Section 12(1) clearly provided that the electoral roll in force on the day prior to the date of nominations shall be the list of voters for the ward and that the supplementary list received by the officer appointed under Rule 3(2) was not the list of voters as provided by Section 12(1). 2. The Court held that the three voters whose names were not in the list of voters were validly allowed to vote as the presiding officer was satisfied that they were the persons entitled to vote under the entries in the voters list and no objection was raised by any candidate or agent. The Court observed that Rule 23 of the Election Rules, 1959 empowered the presiding officer to satisfy himself that the intending voter was entitled to vote and had not yet voted and that the provisions of the rule were intended to safeguard the substantial right of franchise and not to defeat it upon any technical argument. 3. The Court held that the exclusion of one voter whose name was wrongly entered in the voters list for another village did not affect the result of the election as the three petitioners had received a clear majority of votes. The Court observed that the error in excluding this voter was not material for consideration as it would not have changed the outcome of the election.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the Civil Judge and declared that the three petitioners were validly elected. The respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were ordered to pay the costs of petitioners and of the State.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is an application in which is challenged an order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat, acting as a Court under Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (Bombay Act No. III of 1959). Before the learned Civil Judge an election petition was filed challenging the election of the there petitioners: Faiju Mahadeo Chandekar, Rambhau Nago Urkande and, Govinda Krishnaji Mandlik. The petition was filed by tha respondent No. 6 before us, Vithoba Sadasheo Yende. The election was held for filling three seats of membars of ward No, 2 of village Mandgaon in Hinganghat tahsil on 3-10-1961. The election programme had fixed 25-8-1961 as the last date for nominations and tha scrutiny of nominations took place on 26-8-1961. The elections were held on 3-10-1961 and the results of the elections were announced on 5-10-1961. The three petitioners received toe three highest numbers of votes, that is to say, the petitioner No. 2 Rambhau got 144 votes, the petitioner No. 1 Faiju got 143 votes and the petitioner No. 3 Gobinda got 141 votes. The respondent No. 6 Vithoba who moved the petition before the learned Civil Judge got 138 votes and the respondents Nos. 7 and 8, Shankar Govinda Sakude and Shankar Mukaji Hatwar, got 133 and 127 votes respectively.

2. In the Election petition, the election of the present petitioners was challenged upon several grounds most of which were negatived by the learned Civil Judge, but the learned Civil Judge upheld three main objections to their election and it is with those objections that the present petition is concerned.

3. The three objections upon which the election of the present petitioners was set aside were:

(i) that subsequent to the list of voters prepared for this village a supplementary list of 10 voters was sent to the Officer-in-charges of the elections under Rule 3 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959. That officer first accepted the list on 25-8-1961, but later rejected it. The learned Civil Judge held that the list was wrongly rejected; that the ten persons ought to have been allowed to cast their votes at the election. They had been deprived of their franchise and therefore the election was materially affected and ought to be set aside.

(ii) That three voters whoso names were not In the list of voters were allowed to vote. It appears that these threw voters bore the surname Parbat whereas In the voters list the- surname mentioned was Sakode. The personal name and the fathers name of each of the three voters was the same hut the difference was in the surname. These three voters were upon Inquiry allowed to vote by the election officer but the learned Civil Judge hold that they had been wrongly permitted to vote having regard to the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act and the Election Rules.

(iii) That one voter Vithoba Govinda Sakode was not allowed to vote though he ought to have been allowed to vote, it appears that his name had been wrongly entered in toe voters list for village Kora and was not included in village Mandgaon and therefore he was not allowed to vote. The learned Civil Judge held that he was eligible to vote from village Mandgaon and ought to have been permitted to vote and that on that ground also the election was liable to be set aside.

4. All these grounds have been challenged by Mr. Mandlekar on behalf of that petitioners and we will deal with each of the grounds in the order mentioned above.

5. Turning to the first ground on which the election was set aside, namely, that the voters list of 10 voters was wrongly rejected and those ten voters not allowed to vote, the facts are as follows; The voters list is at annexure 6-R/14. At the foot of this list is an endorsement by Mr. S. R. Rupade, the "Niwadnook, Adhikari" (that is to say, the "election officer" appointed under Rule 3(2) of ther Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules to supervise elections) as follows:

"Copy -- Sar Pancha, Mandgaon. The above supplement

Click Here to Read the rest of this document