GANESH NAGORAO RAUT DUDHAGAONKAR Vs. RAJANI SHANKARRAO SATAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 calls in question the judgment and order made by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dated 12th March, 1996 : (reported in AIR 1996 Bom 416). Since, the controversy in this appeal only centres around Issue No. 2, which reads thus:

(2.) The Returning Officer declared the final list of contesting candidates on 26th May, 1994 after scrutinising the nomination papers, on the last date fixed for withdrawal of candidature. The election was held on 15th June, 1994. The counting of votes commenced on 17th June, 1994 in the morning and the result was decalred on the same day. Respondent No. 1 was declared elected. There were in all 424 Councillors of the Municipal Council and Zilla Parishad who comprised the constituency for the election. As per the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the quota for election is fixed by dividing total number of votes by two and adding one to it. The total number of votes being 424, the quota in the present case worked out to 212+1 = 213. None of the contesting candidates secured the requisite quota of 213 votes and, therefore, none could be declared elected at the conclusion of the counting in the first round. Two candidates, i.e., respondents 3 and 4 herein, did not secure even a single preference vote and, therefore, they were excluded in the first round itself. Out of the remaining candidates, respondents 2, 5, 6 and 7 came to be excluded during the counting in the subsequent rounds. While respondent No. 1 was declared elected, the appellant was the unsuccessful candidate.

(3.) In the Election Petition challenging the election of the returned candidate, the plea raised on behalf of the appellant was that preferences recorded on the ballot papers in favour of the excluded candidates were also required to be counted in favour of the appellant and that had the same been so counted, the appellant would have been declared elected. The learned single Judge of the High Court did not agree and dismissed the election petition.