1. By order dated 27/9/2010 notice for final disposal was issued. Accordingly, the Respondents are served. It is necessary to note that Respondent No. 10 Mr. Ajit Anantrao Pawar was originally joined as Respondent No. 10 in the Election Petition filed by the Petitioner. By the interim order dated 2/9/2009 the said Respondent has been deleted from the array of the parties temporarily at this stage of the proceedings. In view of this, the Respondent No. 10 in this Petition is also directed to be deleted. In any case, the Respondent No. 10 is not contesting Respondent as far as this Petition is concerned.

2. The Petitioner is the original Petitioner in the Election Petition filed under section 144T of the M.C.S. Act, 1960. The Petitioner has made the following avernments in the Election Petition which are relevant for the purpose of this Petition. “8) The Petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 1, being responsible for holding the elections of the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 3, is responsible for preparation of proper voter list. The Respondent No. 2 was appointed by the Respondent No. 1 for discharging all the responsibilities of the Election Officer. The Petitioner submits that the voters list were not duly updated and there were a very large number of persons whose names were appearing as voters in the voters list were long back dead. The Petitioner is annexing hereto the voters list as Annexure-A. The Petitioner is hereby annexing the various certificates issued by the various Gramsevaks of the various Grampanchayat certifying the names of the dead persons and the same annexed as Annexure B, C & D. The Petitioner submits that if the names of the dead persons in these certificates are verified with the names appearing in the voters list it is crystal clear that the names of dead persons were included in the voters list and in fact voters were cast in the name of these dead persons. 12) The Petitioner submits that for the purpose of counting of votes there were 38 tables. The counting of votes was not done properly is as much as valid Ballot papers that had votes cast in favour of the Petitioner were intentionally and deliberately rejected. Not only that the votes that were actually cast in favour of the Petitioner were wrongly recorded in favour of the successful candidates. The Respondent No. 2 and his staff members have gone to the extent of holding one vote of Ballot paper valid and rejecting the other two votes on the same Ballot paper on some other ground. This has further affected the election result as in some cases the valid votes have been wrongly rejected and/or wrongly recorded and some cases the valid votes have been counted. Also the total number of votes counted on each table were written on papers and was sent to the Respondent No. 2. However one Mr. Kiranraj Yadav C.E.O of Baramati Municipal Council entered the same data in the computer an instruction of Respondent No. 2 right under the nose of the Respondent No. 2 was making wrong entries. The Petitioner herself has evidenced this fact. The Petitioner as well as her election agent and counting agents pointed this illegality to the election officer but he refused to entertain the grievance of the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 2 even did not accepted the application of this Petitioner for recounting of votes which she had demanded by bringing all the aforesaid illegalities in the procedure of counting of votes. 13) The Petitioner submits that Mr. Nandkumar Katkar, the sub- Divisional Officer, Baramati was no way concerned with this 4 29.wp1148.09 election of Karkhana. He was not a staff member appointed for the purpose of counting of votes. However he was granted entry at site of counting and the Respondent No.2 was functioning as per the ultravires and directions of Mr. Katkar. When one Mr. Ranjan Taware leader of “Shetkari Panel & a contesting candidate of Gat No. 1 raised serious objection against this way of functioning of the Respond