B.H. Marlapalle, J.

Heard Mr. M.S. Usgaonkar, the learned senior counsel with Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. S.S. Kantak, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, in both the petitions. In both these petitions, a common judgment in Devasthan Appeals No. 23/2004 and 24 of 2004 rendered on 29th October, 2004 by the Administrative Tribunal of Goa, has been assailed and hence, both these petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Elections for the Managing Committee of Devasthan by name Shree Ramnath Damodar Sansthan at Zambaulim for the three year period i.e. from 2004 to 2007 were held on 8.2.2004 and the present petitioners came to be elected and also the substitute committee. The Managing Committee consists of the President, Treasurer, Attorney and Clerk (Secretary). It appears that in the General Body Meeting called for holding elections on 8.2.2004, two different panels for the regular as well as substitute Managing Committee were proposed. As there was no unanimity, elections by secret ballot, that is panelwise i.e. Panel 'A' and Panel 'B', were proposed. In all 370 members (mazanes) had exercised their franchise and Panel A polled 197 votes; whereas Panel B 171 votes and two ballot papers were declared invalid. The present respondents were in Panel B and they lost in the elections. Both the respondents challenged the elections by filing Devasthan Appeal No. 23/04 and Devasthan Appeal No. 24/04, respectively and by the impugned judgment, the learned President of the Administrative Tribunal allowed the appeals and declared the elections held on 8.2.2004 as void and hence, set aside the same. The Administrator of the Devasthan has been directed to hold fresh elections, preferably within three months by strictly following the procedure laid down under the Devasthan Regulation. However, the prayer made in Devasthan Appeal No. 23/04 for declaring the appellant duly elected for the post of the President, has been rejected.

3. The Tribunal had called for, the ballot box and record and proceedings. On examination of the same and after hearing the respective parties, it held that Damodar Dukle (petitioner No. 1 in writ petition No. 514/04) was a candidate for the post of President and he himself conducted the elections and thus the election is void. The election has been declared to be void on the following grounds.-

(a) counting of votes was done by Shri Damodar Dukle, Rajesh Dukle and Gajanan Dukle who were themselves candidates;

(b) the total number of votes polled were 370; whereas the meeting was attended by only 328 mazanes:

(c) the persons had cast their votes without their names appearing in the list of capable members:

(d) secrecy of votes was not maintained:

(e) the elections were conducted panelwise and not candidatewise.

The Tribunal further held that the procedure followed gave scope for impersonating and bogus voting and the record of proceedings was not drawn up as required under Article 37 of the Devasthan Regulation. The election was conducted in grave violation of Articles 27 to 35. Shri Damodar Dukle had violated the provisions of Article 37. The elections were conducted in terms of Article 40 and the present petitioners were declared elected as a result of voting by ineligible and non-members.

4. Mr. Usgaonkar, the learned senior counsel, by referring to the minutes of the elections proceedings dated 8.2.2004, submitted that initially 328 mazanes were present and when the subject of election was taken up, it was found that there was no unanimity and one group suggested eight names, whereas another group suggested another eight names for electing the new Managing Committee as well as substitute committee. It was, therefore, decided to hold the poll. The petitioners as well as the respondents were the candidates in the fray and no objection whatsoever was recorded even when it was decided to hold the elections as Panel A versus Panel B. When the election process commenced, some mo