1. This Election Petition is filed under sections 99, 100, 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, hereinafter called as 'the Act'). It challenges the validity of the election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly seat from 212, Parvati Constituency, Pune, Maharashtra in the elections held on 15.1.2014 and the consequent result declared on 19.10.2014. The petitioner though contested the election, had lost the seat. Respondent No.1 is the elected candidate from 212, Parvati Constituency in the said election. Respondent No.2 is the Returning Officer, who was subsequently deleted on 28.3.2016 and respondent No.3, is the Election Commission of India.

2. At the request of the learned Counsel, the adjournments were sought mainly by the petitioner and the respondent and their counsel for personal pre-occupation and therefore, this Court granted adjournments time to time as per the convenience of the petitioner, though this is a proceeding under the Representation of the People Act.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he contested the election in the said constituency as the official candidate of Indian National Congress, a registered political party and respondent No.1 was the official candidate of Bharatiya Janata Party, a registered political party. The petitioner has challenged the election and the result mainly on the grounds of mal practices or corrupt practices and tampering of electronic voting machines, which had taken place in his constituency i.e., 212, Parvati Assembly Constituency. The challenge is also given on the ground that his polling agents were not given entry at the time of mock poll conducted at the polling stations i.e., 185 and 242 of 212, Parvati Assembly Constituency, on the ground that name and signature of his election agent Sunil Shinde was not correctly given. It is the case of the petitioner that votes of several supporters of the petitioner, who had voted for him, were not counted in his favor and thus, there is discrepancy with the election results. Thus, physical count of votes cast by his supporters does not match with the election results thereby led the discrepancy and thus, there is a blatant abuse of the election procedure.

4. Respondent No.1, who is the main contesting party, has categorically denied all the averments and contentions raised in respect of the election proceeding. So also, she rejected the allegations on authenticity of the working of the Electronic Voting Machines (EV Machines). The respondent justified the result declared by the Election Commission. She also denied that there were mal practices or abuse of the election procedure and prayed that the petition be rejected.

5. The petition is marked at exhibit 1. Affidavit in Reply of the elected candidate and MLA is marked at exhibit 2. Issues were framed and they are as follows:

(i) Whether the votes cast by voters by use of electronic voting machines used at Booth Nos.86, 185, 191, 242 and 305 at the election to 212 Parvati Legislative Assembly Constituency held on 15.10.2014 have been incorrectly recorded?

(ii) Whether the machines at booth Nos.86, 185, 191, 242 and 305 at the election to 212, Parvati Legislative Assembly Constituency were tampered?

(iii) Whether the petitioner proves that the results declared as output from the electronic voting machines in respect of Booth Nos.86, 185, 191, 242 and 305 at the election to 212, Parvati Legislative Assembly Constituency are incorrect?

(iv) Whether the petitioner proves that the election of Respondent No.1 from 212, Parvati Legislative Assembly Constituency is void under the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1950?

(v) What order?”

Affidavit in examination in chief marked at exhibit 3.

6. The petitioner examined himself and his witnesses. The Respondent No.1 did not examine any witness and hence, Mr.Kale, the learned Counsel for the res