The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following due procedure in secret ballot voting and the need for proper examination of disputed facts by the authorities.

JUDGMENT

S. G. Mehare, J. - Learned counsel for the appellants / petitioners would submit that the learned Collector did not follow the due procedure while arriving at the conclusion that the Presiding Officer committed an error in not following the due procedure of the secret ballot voting. He would state that the reply of the Presiding Officer has been ignored by both the authorities i.e. the Collector as well as the Additional Commissioner. He would further submit that there was absolutely no material before the authorities passing impugned orders to arrive at the conclusion that the ballot boxes were not sealed and hence the election process was faulty.

2. Learned AGP appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 13 and waives the service of notice.

3. Learned counsel Mr. A. B. Chormal appears on instructions for respondent No.3. Hence permitted to file Vakalatnama.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would refer to the reply fled by him, which had been refected to the impugned orders. He would vehemently argue that Presiding Officer has committed the serious error in holding the secret ballot voting. The Presiding Officer had hastily took the secret ballot voting and had not considered the objections raised by the defeated candidates for the post of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. He has supported the impugned orders and prayed that this is not a ft case to grant the interim stay.

5. This Court has gone through the impugned orders. There appears substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has raised the question that no proper procedure of examining the disputed fact has been followed by the Collector, Ahmednagar and only on the basis of the statement made by the parties, he has concluded the dispute. The learned counsel for the applicant has expressed an apprehension that a fresh election for the post of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch, may be held at any time. The petitioners have also an apprehension that if re-election for the same post is conducted, they may lose their posts. There appears force in the submissions made by the petitioners. This Court is of the view that this is a ft case to pass an interm order of stay till the parties file their reply. Hence, the following order :

ORDER

1. The impugned orders are stayed till the reply is fled by respective counsels.

2. Issue notices to the respondents, returnable on 18.11.2021.

3. The parties / respondents appeared are at liberty to file the reply on or before 17.11.2021.

4. Stand over to 18.11.2021.