Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Bom) 467

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Sangita Pandurang Bankar and Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.7211 of 2021
Decided on : 05-06-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Yatin Malvankar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mrs. M.S. Srivastava, Mr. S. M. Gorwadkar, i./by Mr. Niranjan Mogrea/w. Mr. Ritvik Joshi, Mr. Akshay Karlekar and Mr. ShashikandSonawane, Advocates

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Presiding Officer's actions, including asking for the procedure of the election and subsequent interpolation of the minutes, violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 10(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964.

Headnote:
Election - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Rule 10(2) - The court upheld the orders setting aside the elections of the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch due to the Presiding Officer's failure to conduct the election in accordance with Rule 10(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964. The court found that the Presiding Officer's actions, including asking for the procedure of the election and subsequent interpolation of the minutes, violated the mandatory provisions of the rule.
Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners, elected members of Gram Panchayat -Chimbli, challenged the election of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch. The Respondents alleged irregularities in the election process, including the Presiding Officer's conduct and the interpolation of the minutes.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Presiding Officer's actions violated Rule 10(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, and upheld the orders setting aside the elections of the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch.
Issues: The issues revolved around the conduct of the election process, including the Presiding Officer's actions and the interpolation of the minutes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Presiding Officer's conduct, including asking for the procedure of the election and subsequent interpolation of the minutes, violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 10(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and directed the Petitioners to pay costs of Rs.20,000 to the Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioners, Mrs. Srivastava, learned AGP for the State and Mr. S. M.Gorwadkar, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 to 13.

2. Petitioners are elected members of Gram Panchayat -Chimbli, Taluka - Khed, District - Pune. Petitioner No. 1 is elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat in its meeting held on 24.02.2021. Petitioner No. 4 is elected as Upa-Sarpanch i.e. Deputy Sarpanch in the said meeting. Petitioners (4 in number) alongwith Respondent Nos. 6 to 13 (eight in number) were elected as members of the Gram Panchayat on 18.01.2021 being successful candidates in the election.

3. Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar appointed Respondent No. 3 Presiding Officer vide order dated 18.02.2021 to conduct election of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch. Respondent No. 3 prepared the schedule of election and accordingly intimated the elected members. Notice was issued and election of members of Panchayat was scheduled on 24.02.2021. All elected members of Gram Panchayat were present. Respondent No. 3 invited nomination for posts of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 6 submitted their respective nomination for post of Sarpanch. Since there was no unanimity and three members demanded that election be conducted by secret ballot, in terms of Rule 10(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 (for short “the said Rules”), Respondent No. 3 conducted the election of Sarpanch by secret ballot method. After the election Respondent No. 3 counted the votes cast and declared Petitioner No. 1 having received seven votes and declared her elected as Sarpanch. On the same date, Respondent No. 3 conducted election of Deputy Sarpanch. Petitioner No. 3 and Respondent No. 7 filed their nominations for the post of Deputy Sarpanch respectively. However before the election could be conducted Respondent No. 12 left the meeting hall thereby leaving only 12 members to cast their votes by secret ballot. After the elections Respondent No. 3 declared that seven votes were cast in favour of Petitioner No. 3 and five votes were cast in favour of Respondent No. 7 and declared Petitioner No. 3 elected as Deputy Sarpanch.

4. Being aggrieved Respondent Nos. 6 to 12 filed dispute Application No. 18 of 2022 dated 26.02.2021 before the Respondent No. 2 - Collector, Pune against Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 under the provisions of Section 33(5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short “the said Act”) and challenged the election of Sapranch of Gram Panchyat.

5. Respondent No. 13 was impleaded in the dispute Application subsequently. Petitioners and Respondent No. 13 opposed the dispute Application by filing their written statement. At the same time, Respondent No. 11 filed a separate dispute Application No. 19 of 2021 dated 01.03.2021 before the Respondent No.2 - Collector, Pune against Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to challenge the election of the Deputy Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Incidentally, it needs to be noted that Petitioner No. 3 (elected as Deputy Sarpanch) was not made a party to the dispute Application filed by Respondent No. 11.

6. Respondent No. 2 - Collector, Pune by common order dated 29.07.2021 allowed both the dispute Applications and set aside the elections of the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch. Being aggrieved Petitioners and Respondent No. 13 filed Gram Panchayat Appeal No. 10 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021 before the Respondent No. 1 - Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune under the provisions of Section 33(5) of the said Act. Respondent No. 1 - Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune rejected the Petitioners” Application for stay of Respondent No.2 – Collector’s order by his order dated 31.08.2021 and subsequently by order dated 14.10.2021 rejected the Petitioners” statutory Appeal and confirmed the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the Collector, Pune. Being aggrieved by the two concurrent orders, Petitioners are bef