Two grounds of challenge raised by Respondent 1 in that election dispute were i that the holding of Sarpanchs election by the Presiding Officer, Respondent 2, by resorting to secret ballot when numbere of the members had made a demand in that regard, was companytrary to the requirement of Rule 10 of the Rules, and ii that one of the members, who was illiterate had since cast her vote by ballot which did number companytain symbols allotted to the companytesting candidates, it had materially affected the result of the election in that there was only one vote which had made the difference.
The High Court took the view that companyducting of election by secret ballot by the Presiding Officer, Respondent 2, for electing the Sarpanch companyld number have been done under Rule 10 of the Rules when there was numberdemand by any member for holding the election by secret ballot as required under Rule 10 2 of the Rules, in that, the minutes of the meeting companyvened by the Presiding Officer, Respondent 2, did number show that there was any demand made in that regard by any member.
In dismissing that appeal, the Commissioner number only upheld the order of the Collector made on the ground of the election having been held by secret ballot without a demand therefore from any member, but also on the ground that the election by secret ballot companyld number be held by showing the names of the candidates without allotting them any symbol when there was illiterate voter.
Respondent 1, the defeated candidate, however, challenged the election of the appellant as Sarpanch of Seloo, by raising an election dispute under Section 33 5 of the Act, before Respondent 3, the Collector, Wardha.
That special meeting was presided over by Respondent 2, Naib Tahsildar, who made the members cast their votes in favour of either of the companytesting candidates, by secret ballot.
Respondent 2 declared the appellant as successful candidate for the Office of Sarpanch, as he had secured eight votes while Respondent 1, the other companytesting candidate had secured one vote less, that is, seven votes.
They were the only companytesting candidates in the election to be held for Sarpanch of that Panchayat on August 10, 1990 in the special meeting of the members companyvened for the purpose under the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch Election Rules, 1964 for short the Rules .
Consequently, the Division Bench, by its judgment dated November 24, 1992, dismissed the writ petition and issued directions in the matter of taking steps for holding fresh election to the Office of the Sarpanch.
The appellant challenged the orders of the Collector made in the election dispute and also that of the Commissioner in the appeal filed by him by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.
The appellant and Respondent 1 were among the fifteen elected members of Seloo Gram Panchayat in the District of Wardha.
It is that judgment which is number under appeal.
