JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:---The petitioner in this petition impugns the order dated 23rd June 1995 whereby the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Madha dismissed the election petition being Election Petition No. 2 of 1995 filed by the petitioner herein.

2.The elections were held to the Grampanchayat of village Ujani (Tahsil) Madha on 20th April 1995. The petitioner contested from Ward No. 3 which was a multi seats ward. There were three candidates to be elected of which one seat was reserved for woman. The petitioner had filed her nomination alongwith opponent No. 1 for the reserved seat meant for woman.

3.At the elections held the votes secured by the candidates is as under :-

NameNo. of votes.

Sharad Digambar Vaste (Resp. 3)134

Smt. Mahananda Rajaram Nikam (Resp. 1)119

Shobha Ashok Patil (Petitioner)118

Haibatrao Nivruti Nikam (Resp. 2)115

Navnath Bhanudas Lokhare (Resp. 5)112

Abhiman Baliram Lokhare (Resp. 4) 92

Laxman Namdeo Lokhare (Resp. 6) 74.

The Returning Officer declared Smt. Mahananda Rajaram Nikam, The respondent No. 1 elected for the reserved seat for woman on the ground that she had secured the highest number of votes amongst the woman candidates. Thereafter the Returning Officer proceeded to declare elected the respondent No. 3 who had secured 134 votes and the last candidate from the said Ward elected was respondent No. 2 Haibatrao Nivruti Nikam securing 115 votes.

4.Election petition was filed on the ground that the petitioner having secured 118 votes ought to have been declared elected for the third seat and not respondent No. 2 Haibatrao Nivruti Nikam. The 2nd Joint Civil Judge. Junior Division, Madha however held that the Returning Officer was justified in holding Respondent No. 2 as the winner as the petitioner had contested for reserved seat for woman and as respondent No. 1 had been declared elected to the reserved seat for woman the petitioner was disentitled to be considered for the general seat and consequently dismissed the petition. Some other reasons have been advanced which have nothing to do with the decision of an election petition.

5.Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Returning Officer as also the judgment of the Civil Judge. Junior Division is clearly contrary to the Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Election Rules, 1959. In terms of the said rules after elections have been notified for a ward a candidate seeking to file the nomination has to file the same in term of Rule 10 alongwith an amount of Rs. 50/- in cash. However in a Ward in which a seat or seats is or are reserved for a woman, Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes the sum to be deposited by or on behalf of a candidate who is a woman or a member of a Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes shall be Rs. 10/-. There is no separate provision whereby a candidate who contests a reserved seat in order to contest the general seat from the same ward has to deposit another set of fees. Thereafter in terms of Rule 34 the Returning Officer has to declare the candidate who has secured the largest number of votes as elected to fill such reserved seat. There is a proviso which sets out that if there is a reservation of seat for woman and for Scheduled Castes and/or Scheduled Tribes the result of seat or seats reserved for Scheduled Castes shall be declared first and then result of the seat or seats reserved for woman. In other words in a ward where there is also a reserved seat the Returning Officer has to first declare as elected a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes thereafter declare the result of the seat reserved for woman. After that has been complied with the Returning Officer shall then declare amongst all other candidates excluding those who have been declared elected to fill the reserved seat from amongst candidates who have secured the largest number of votes to be elected to fill the reserved seat. On a perusal of sub-rule (1) and (2), there is no manner of doub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document