1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner contested the election of Kesapuri Village Panchayat and is declared as elected from Ward No. 4 on the reserved seat of Other Backward Class category. The respondent No. 11, voter of the village panchayat Kesapuri from Ward No. 4 assailed the election of the petitioner by filing election petition bearing Election Petition No. 03 of 2013 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Majalgaon. The respondent No. 11 challenged the election of the petitioner basically on the ground that the name of the petitioner appears in the voters list for the election of village panchayat Govindwadi, Tq. Majalgaon. The election for the village panchayat Govindwadi was conducted on 26.11.2012. The petitioner had cast his vote in the village panchayat election of Govindwadi held on 26.11.2012 and subsequently contested the election for village panchayat Kesapuri held on 06.12.2012 and is elected. The petitioner could not have been voter in both the village panchayats, as such was disqualified from contesting the election as a member of village panchayat Kesapuri. The learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Majalgaon accepted the contention of the respondent No. 11 and set aside the election of present petitioner as a member of village panchayat Kesapuri under his judgment and order dated 10.03.2014 in Election Petition No. 03 of 2013. The petitioner has assailed the said judgment in the present writ petition.

3. Mr. S. J. Salunke, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, neither the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (erstwhile Bombay Village Panchayat Act), (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1958") nor Representation of Peoples Act 1950 and 1951 disqualifies a person to contest election on the ground that the name of such person appears in the voters list of two different village panchayats. The learned advocate relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Shyamdeo Pd. Singh Vs. Nawal Kishor Yadav reported in AIR 2000 SC 3000, so also another judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Baburao Vs. Manikrao and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 2028(1). The learned advocate also relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Ramdas Sheoramji Vs. Panjab Govindraoji and others reported in AIR 1970 Bombay 96.

4. Mr. V. D. Salunke, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 11 strenuously submits that, Sec. 16 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 (for short "Act of 1950") lays down disqualification for registration in an electoral roll and Sec. 17 of the Act of 1950 specifically provides that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for more than one constituency. The learned advocate also refers to Sec. 62 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short “Act of 1951”) and more particularly Sub Sec. 2 and 3 to submit that no person shall vote at an election in any constituency if he is subject to any of the disqualification referred to in Sec. 16 of the Act of 1950 and further no person shall vote at an general election in more than one constituency of the same class, and if a person votes in more than one such constituency, his votes in all such constituencies shall be void. The learned counsel further submits that, even sub Sec. 4 of Sec. 62 of the Act of 1951 precludes a person from voting in the same constituency more than once notwithstanding that his name may have been registered in the electoral roll for that constituency for more than once, and if he does so vote, all his votes in that constituency shall be void. The learned advocate to buttress his submissions relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Chief Election Commissioner Vs. Jan Chaukidar (Peoples Watch) and others reported in 2013(5) Bom.C.R. 772.

5. Mr. V. D. Salunke, the learned advocate further submits that, Sec. 13 of the Act of 1958 lays down that