for the appellant.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, I. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain.
None of the ballot papers was returned by the voters to the Presiding Officer under R. 41 2 of the Conduct of Election Rules.
On appeal, the Bombay High Court declared that the election of Savant was void, and dismissed the rest of the claim made by Salunkhe.
The Election Tribunal at Alibag dismissed the petition.
Savant and Salunkhe got equal number of valid votes.
in the circumstances, the Presiding Officer wrongfully took possession of the ballot papers, and thus prevented the voters from inserting those ballot papers into the ballot box.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 26, 1963.
The other candidates got much lesser votes.
624 of 1964.
The Returning Officer drew lots and declared Savant duly elected.
98 of 1963 from Original Decree.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Election Tribunal and the High Court have companycurrently found that.
The ballot papers were number tampered with after they were taken possession by the Presiding Officer.
R. Prem and B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondents Nos.
D. Kamerkar, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chau dhuri, for respondent No.
should be declared duly elected.
Savant number appeals by special leave.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. Shankar Babaji Savant and Sakharam Vithoba Salunkhe were candidates for election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Mahad Constituency.
On enquiry, Kolhe was satisfied that all the 19 voters were electors entered on the electoral roll, and the challenges as to their identity were number established.
Salunkhe filed an election petition claiming that the election was void, and that he, having received the majority of the valid votes.
They then wanted to insert their ballot papers into the ballot box, but Kolhe did number permit them to do so, and instead, directed them to hand over those papers to himself.
of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The voters were then supplied with ballot papers, and they duly entered their votes on those papers.
All the 19 voters indicated their preferences on the ballot papers before they were taken possession of by the Returning Officer.
5 and 6.
The Returning Officer received the 19 ballot papers inside the sealed envelope, but he did number companynt them, as they were number taken out of the ballot bax.
There were four other candidates in the field.
