THAKORE NANDABEN JASUJI Vs. THAKORE LAKSHMIBEN ATAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dt. February 17, 1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mehsana in Election Petition No.3 of 1997.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she is a permanent resident of village Chaluva, Taluka and District Mehsana. Election for the office of Sarpanch of Chaluva Gram Panchayat was held on February 10, 1997. The election was held in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Elections Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Gujarat Panchayats Elections Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the " the Rules"). According to the petitioner, at the time of first counting, the petitioner obtained 773 votes, whereas the respondent no.1 obtained 779 votes. Thus, the respondent no.1 obtained more votes than the petitioner and accordingly, she was declared as elected candidate for the office of Sarpanch under Rule 60 of the Rules. Since the difference of votes obtained by the petitioner and respondent no.1 was small, the petitioner applied for re-counting under Rule 61 of the Rules. Recounting was granted and at recounting, the petitioner obtained 783 votes as against first respondent who had obtained 781 votes. The petitioner was, hence, declared as elected. It was the allegation of the petitioner that after the petitioner was declared as elected, signatures from both the candidates viz. petitioner as well as first respondent were obtained by the Returning Officer and she left the place of counting. After the petitioner left the place, the Returning Officer/Election Commissioner and Taluka Development Officer in collusion and connivance with the respondent no.1 granted further recounting and in that further recounting, as asserted by the first respondent, the petitioner obltained 772 votes as against first respondent who had obtained 776 votes. Thus, the respondent no.1 was declared as an elected Sarpanch.

(3.) Since the petitioner was convinced that the action taken by the second respondent was illegal and contrary to law, was malafide and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, she challenged it by filing Election Petition No.3 of 1997 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mahesana ("Election Tribunal" for short) under Sec.31 of the Act. The Election Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and order dt. February 17, 1999, dismissed the petition, inter alia, observing that there was no illegality and/or illegality committed by respondent no.2 in granting re-recounting and that when the first respondent obtained more votes than the petitioner in the said counting, the petitioner could not make a grievance against declaration to that effect and in declaring her as an elected candidate to the office of Sarpanch of Chaluva. The learned Judge also observed that third time counting was permitted under the Election Rules.