The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Judge trying the petition under Section 15 of the Act of 1958 has the power to call for the electronic voting machine and scrutinize and compute the votes polled in favor of the candidates.

Heard Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

2. The present respondent No.1 filed petition under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1958”) in the Court of Civil Judge challenging the decision of the Returning Officer declaring the present petitioner as successful candidate at the election held for the seat of Member of Gram Panchayat on 06-08-2015. In the election petition it is prayed that it be declared that the present respondent No.1 is the successful candidate as declared earlier by the Returning Officer.

In these proceedings, the present petitioner had filed an application (Exhibit No.90) praying that the electronic voting machine be called for verification and counting of votes. The learned trial Judge has rejected this application by the impugned order. The lis is between the present petitioner and the present respondent No.1. The respondent Nos.2 to 7 are formal parties. Considering the nature of dispute, the petition is taken up for final disposal without issuing notices to the respondent Nos.2 to 7.

3. The elections of Gram-Panchayat Khirpuri, Tahsil -Balapur, District – Akola are held on 04-08-2015. The present petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6 contested from Ward No.3. In this Ward, out of the three seats, one was reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman Candidate and one was reserved for Other Backward Class Woman Candidate. The present petitioner and the present respondent No.1 contested for the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman Candidate.

4. According to the claim in the election petition, the present respondent No.1 and the present petitioner got equal votes and therefore, lots were drawn and the present respondent No.1 was declared elected on 06-08-2015 at 11.00 a.m. The present respondent No.1 has pleaded that on 06-08-2015 at about 3.30 p.m. the present petitioner made hue and cry claiming that she is declared elected on the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman Category and therefore, the present respondent No.1 approached the Returning Officer who informed that the present petitioner was declared elected. According to the present respondent No.1, on 06-08-2015, she filed an application for obtaining certified copies of the proceedings book, she got the certified copies on 10-08-2015 and then after noticing that the procedure adopted by the Returning Officer was illegal and the Returning Officer and the present petitioner played fraud and committed mischief, the present respondent No.1 lodged complaint with the police station and then filed the election petition.

5. In these proceedings, the present petitioner filed the application (Exhibit No.90) contending that the present petitioner got 220 votes and the present respondent No.1 got 200 votes, however, the Returning Officer had earlier wrongly recorded that the present respondent No.1 and the present petitioner got 208 votes each. The present petitioner prayed that the electronic voting machines which are in the custody of District Administration be called and the votes polled in favour of the respective candidates be verified. The learned trial Judge has rejected this application by the impugned order.

6. Shri S.D. Chopde, learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 15(2) and Section 15(5)(b) of the Act of 1958 and has submitted that the Judge dealing with the petition under Section 15 of the Act of 1958 is conferred with all the powers of Civil Court and the Judge has the power to scrutinize and compute the votes polled in favour of each candidate. It is submitted that the power to compute and scrutinise the votes polled in favour of candidates enables the Judge to call the electronic voting machines and verify the votes polled in favour of the candidates. To support the submission, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the judgment given by the Division Bench