JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.8.2016, delivered by the trial Court vide which Election Petition No.1/2015, has been partly allowed. The election of the petitioner to the post of member of the Village Panchayat, Taroba, Tal. Umarkhed, dated 23.4.2015, has been set aside.

3. The extensive submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner can be summarized as a under:

(a) The petitioner, finds her name in the voters list of ward No. 1 that was published as a final voters list, on 10.2.2015.

(b) The petitioner filed her nomination form for contesting the election to the post of member of the Village Panchayat, on 7.4.2015.

(c) Her nomination form was validated on 8.4.2015 thereby clearing her way to contest the elections.

(d) The voting took place on 22.4.2015.

(e) The election results were declared on 23.4.2015 and the petitioner polled 294 as against 280 votes polled by respondent No. 2 herein.

(f) Respondent No. 2 preferred an Election Petition under section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 seeking disqualification of the petitioner on the ground of she being less than 21 years of age.

(g) The entire Election Petition is restricted exclusively to the ambit of Section 15 seeking a declaration that the petitioner be held to be less than 21 years of age on the date of her election.

(h) There is no allegation of the petitioner having indulged in corrupt electoral practices in the entire memo of the Election Petition.

(i) The Election Petition would be untenable under section 15, since Section 15(5)(a)(b) defines the scope and jurisdiction of the trial Court in interfering with the result of an election and unless a Judge finds any corrupt practice having been committed by the elected person or by any person known or unknown to the elected candidate, the election could not be set aside.

(j) The corrupt practices have also been defined under section 16(6)(a,b&c) read with the 1st proviso and three explanations which make it further clear that a dispute as regards age of a candidate cannot be a subject matter of an Election Petition under section 15.

(k) Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act specifically deals with the disability of the candidate from being a member if the said candidate, who is elected or appointed, was subject to any of the disqualification mentioned in section 14, at the time of his election or appointment.

(l) Section 14(1)(a-1) clearly provides for a disqualification of a candidate if he is found to be less than 21 years of age.

(m) The disputant could have initiated proceedings under section 16 and could not have moved the Election Petition under section 15 which is restricted and limited only to corrupt electoral practices as defined.

(n) The petitioner produced her Birth Certificate obtained from the Umarkhed Municipality on 27.6.2016 which indicates that her birth occurred on 20.5.1985 and the date of registration of such birth in the Birth and Death Register has taken place at registration No. 451 dated 1.9.1985.

(o) Reliance is placed upon the following judgments:

(i) Shrikrishna Wasudeo Dhage vs. Shivcharan s/o. Trimbakrao Kalne & Ors, (2010) 3 MhLJ 281;

(ii) Jyoshna Gouda vs. Brindaban Gouda & anr, (2012) 5 SCC 634;

(iii) Suryakant Shivaji Munde vs. State Election Commission, Mumbai & Ors, (2018) 2 MhLJ 409

4. The learned Advocate for the 2nd respondent, who is the original petitioner before the trial Court in the Election Petition, has strenuously canvased his pleadings in the Election Petition which can be summarized as under:

(a) The original petitioner need not approach any authority under section 16 or under section 14(1)(a-1);

(b) Sub section 1 & 2 of Section 15 covers every ground meant for declaring an election as being invalid;

(c) The school record was produced before the trial Court which indicated that the petitioner is born