AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 9th June, 2017 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Borsad in Election Petition No. 1 of 2017 by which the petitioner's election petition came to be dismissed.

2. Brief facts are as under:

2.1. Election for the post of Sarpanch of Virsad Gram Panchayat was conducted by the State Election Commission in the month of December, 2016 in accordance with the provisions contained in the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ("the Act" for short) and the rules made there under. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 herein were the only two candidates in the fray. Polling took place on 27th December, 2016 and the counting of votes was conducted on 29th December, 2016. During the counting, petitioner had raised multiple disputes with the Election Officer and filed as many as four applications raising objections. Yet, another application was filed before the Election Officer, after counting of the votes was over, but before declaration of result of the election. All such applications were rejected by the Election Officer. The result was declared in the late night of 29th December, 2016 and early morning of 30th December, 2016 wherein the respondent No. 2 was declared as a successful candidate. Out of the total of 5,641 valid votes; which included 32 postal ballots, the returned candidate had secured 2,646 votes, the petitioner had received 2611 votes' and there were 89 rejected and N.O.T.A. votes.

2.2. The petitioner filed the said election petition before the learned Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Borsad praying for setting aside the election of the respondent No. 2 and for conducting the election afresh. In such election petition, she averred that during the course of counting of the votes which took place on 29th December, 2016, she and her election agents were present. During counting, the Returning Officer had not followed the provisions of the Act. The votes were counted in such a manner as to favour the defendant No. 1 i.e., the present respondent No. 2. She objected to the manner in which the postal ballots were accepted and counted. She had also raised objection with respect to the votes which were declared invalid and which were N.O.T.A. votes. She had filed several applications before the Returning Officer during the course of counting of the votes itself. She contended that the Returning Officer had favoured the defendant No. 1 through unfair means.

2.3. The defendants which included the returned candidate and the official respondents opposed the election petition by the filing replies.

2.3.A. The petitioner moved an application Exh. 21 in such proceedings and prayed for recount of votes as an interim measure. Such application was rejected by the learned Judge, upon which the petitioner filed Appeal From Order before the District Court. The District Court allowed such an appeal and ordered recount of votes by way of interim measure. This order was challenged by the returned candidate before this Court. Division Bench of this Court, by an Order dated 24th July, 2017, reversed the appellate order and allowed the petition. In such judgment, reference was made to sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 31 of the Act, and the learned Judge was requested to pass a final judgment within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.

2.4. Relevant portion of the judgment of Division Bench reads as under:

"8. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the same falls within the ambit of clause (b) of sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 31 of the Act, viz., the validity of the election is in dispute between two or more candidates which needs scrutiny and computation of the votes. Therefore, in view of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 31 of the Act, the learned Judge is required to carry out a scrutiny and computation of the votes recorded in favour of each candidate, and thereafter, declare the candidate who is found to have the