( 1 ) RULE. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 waive service. Learned A. G. P appears for respondent nos. 8,9 and 13. Service on respondent Nos. 10 to 12 dispensed with. Heard finally by consent of parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioners by this Petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, challenge the order dated 26th December, 2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner, konkan Division in Village Panchayat (V. P) Appeal no. 383 of 2005 and the order dated 17th October, 2005 passed by the Additional Collector, ratnagiri in Grampanchayat Appeal (S. R.) No. 35 of 2005.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 7 filed the above grampanchayat Appeal invoking the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector under Section 33 (5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "village Panchayat act" ). They are the members of Grampanchayat, karla, Taluka and District : Ratnagiri. They challenged the elections to the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of this Grampanchayat. petitioner No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch and petitioner No. 2 was elected as Upa-Sarpanch of this Grampanchayat in a meeting held on 12th august, 2005.

( 4 ) IT is their case that at the elections held on 19th June, 2005 to the said grampanchayat, 13 members were elected. It is their case that some of them were declared elected unopposed. The result of the said elections was declared on 21st June, 2005.

( 5 ) IT is further alleged in the grampanchayat Appeal that the Returning Officer convened a meeting of the Grampanchayat to elect sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch thereto. The meeting was adjourned on two occasions and ultimately the same was held on 12th August, 2005 for the aforesaid purpose. It is contended in appeal/application that on the appointed date and time, Nine members of the Panchayat attended the meeting. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 requested the returning Officer to commence the proceedings. However, it is alleged that the Returning Officer stated that, after all members are present, the proceedings would commence. That was objected to by respondent Nos. 1 to 7. The meeting, therefore, commenced. It is alleged further that the Returning Officer informed the members that election would be held by show of hands. According to them, none objected to this course of action and method of election. However, it is alleged that at about 02:15 p. m, the first respondent (i. e. Returning Officer) all of a sudden announced that the elections would be held by secret ballot.

( 6 ) IT is alleged that nobody had requested to hold the elections by secret ballot. If nobody has demanded voting by secret ballot, then, it was not permissible to adopt that method. However, the Returning Officer persisted and informed respondent Nos. 1 to 7 that the manner of holding elections has to be decided by him and he would not entertain any objections in that behalf. It is alleged that when a decision was taken to hold the election by secret ballot, necessary preparations for the same were not undertaken. This aspect was pointed out by respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to the Returning Officer. However, he informed respondent Nos. 1 to 7 that merely because preparatory steps, to hold election by secret ballot, are not being taken, it does not mean that the meeting has to be postponed or adjourned.

( 7 ) THE specific averment in appeal/application is that since respondent Nos. 1 to 7 did not want any obstruction in the election process/programme, they did not object further. In Paras 3 to 8 of the Appeal/application, averments pertaining to breach of procedural requirements for holding a secret ballot have been incorporated. The details pertaining to the rules, the procedure adopted and infirmities therein have been pointed out. In Para 9 of the appeal/application prayers are that the elections to the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch held on 12th August, 2005 be declared as erroneous and illegal; and re-election be directed for the said posts. This Appeal/application is filed on 29th August, 200

Click Here to Read the rest of this document