The election result cannot be set aside for procedural errors unless they materially affect the outcome or are proven to be corrupt.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Rule. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Dalpura Group Gram Panchayat, Taluka Danta, reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The respondent–State Government issued a Notification on 29.11.2021 under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1994”), more particularly under Rule 9(1) and (2), notifying the election for the post of Sarpanch of Dalpura Gram Panchayat, scheduled to be held on 19.12.2021. The petitioner, as well as the respondent Nos.2 to 7, submitted their nomination forms to contest the election for the reserved seat. Accordingly, the election was conducted on 19.12.2021.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Election Officer committed serious irregularities in the counting and recounting of votes, which necessitated her to file an Election Petition under Section 31 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act , 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1993”), before the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Danta, District: Palanpur. Election Petition No.1 of 2021 came to be heard and was ultimately dismissed on 31.01.2024, leading to the filing of the captioned writ petition.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Ankit Bachani, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that through the Election Petition, the petitioner specifically challenged the action of the Returning Officer in violating the provisions of Rules 60 and 61 of the Rules of 1994. It is submitted that the counting of votes took place on 21.12.2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Room No.16. After the completion of three rounds of counting, both the petitioner and the respondent No.2 secured 343 votes each, as initially declared by the respondent No.1–Returning Officer. Since the petitioner noticed that several ballot papers bearing a valid stamp in her favour were wrongly declared invalid, she immediately applied for a recount. It is further submitted that the Election Officer failed to complete the necessary formalities, including the filling up of Form 27 as mandated under Rule 60(7) of the Rules of 1994, and thereafter, in a subsequent declaration, the petitioner was shown to have secured 263 votes, whereas the respondent No.2 was shown to have secured 278 votes. Relying on Rule 61(4)(b) of the Rules of 1994, learned advocate Mr. Bachani, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the Election Officer acted in violation of statutory provisions and, therefore, the election of the respondent No.2 ought to have been quashed and set aside by the Tribunal, which has not been done.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Bachani has further submitted that although the Tribunal held that the provisions of Rule 27A of the Rules of 1994 were violated, inasmuch as no result was recorded by the Election Officer, it nevertheless failed to set aside the election of the respondent No.2. Such an approach, according to the petitioner, amounts to a clear illegality on the part of the Tribunal. It is also submitted that immediately after the recount, the petitioner again submitted an application to the Election Officer requesting another recount, as discrepancies were noticed even in the recounting process. However, the Election Officer did not consider such an application. Thus, it is urged that the election of the respondent No.2, as well as the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the Election Petition, are required to be quash