ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

By sent of parties, Rule is finally heard.

2. By this petition, petitioners impugn order dated 29th July, 2006 by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, confirming order of Ad Collector, Hingoli, whereby their election as Sarpanch and Upa-s respectively, are set aside.

3. There are seven members of Village Panchayat Palodi (Dist. Hi Admittedly, election was held on 24-8-2005 for post of Sarpanch an sarpanch. An election officer, who is Junior Engineer in Irrigation Department was appointed to conduct the election. The election officer convened a of the village panchayat members. The Panchayat members were informed the purpose of the meeting and the election proceedings were started. At 1:45 pm. three members of the village Panchayat submitted an application election officer and requested him to conduct the election by secret ball " election officer granted their request and decided to hold the election by ballot method. He distributed paper slips for use of the members/vote called Upon them to put tick mark against the names of those in favour of they wanted to cast the vote. There were two contesting candidates for the Sarpanch and two contesting candidates for the post of Upa-sarpanch. Th were casted by putting ballot papers in the ballot box and after counting of election officer declared the petitioners No.1 and 2 as elected Sarpanch an Up-sarpanch, respectively.

4. There was objection raised by the defeated candidates and there was pandemonium. The election officer prepared proceedings of the meeting but some of the members refused to sign the proceedings. He hurriedly left since he apprehended some foul play. He thereafter reported to the regarding the incident. In the meanwhile, respondents Nos. 3 to 6 filed before the Additional Collector, Hingoli and sought intervention. They submitted that the procedure adopted by the election officer was improper and illegal. The election was conducted without explaining the procedure to the voters members of the Village Panchayat prior to casting of their votes. Some of members of the Village Panchayat are illiterate and hence could not understood the procedure. The election officer further committed called irregularity casting a vote himself and thereby participated in election proc proceeding book was not written at the place of the election. They contended that the election officer had flouted the relevant rules and regulation conducting the election and as such declaration of results is illegal. The Additional Collector called remarks of the election officer. He conduct enquiry, heard the parties and held that the election process was not con accordance with the relevant rules. He held that the election of the petitioners vitiated due to improper process of election and particularly when the officer had participated in the process of casting the votes. Hence he set petitioners elections. It is this order which is subject of challenge in the instant petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned Government Pleader. The material issue involved in the petition is whether election was conducted in accordance with Rule 10(2) of the Bombay Panchayat (Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964.

6. Before I proceed to scan the material on record, let it be noted that the election officer was independent person being Junior Engineer of Irrigation Department. It appears from his reply to the queries made by the Collector, the course of the enquiry of the election dispute, that election was ducted in Tahsil office and while he was preparing the proceeding book, the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 along with some 50/60 persons gathered there and started showering various queries. They were asking him and the Tahsildar number of questions and hence there was pandemonium. His reply to query No.7 in the r dated 29-9-2005 would show that Tahsildar recorded written complaint of each applicant a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document