VIR VIKRAMSINHJI MULVAJI JADEJA Vs. CHUNILAL DAHYABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the election of the respondent No. 1 as the President of Lodhika Gram Panchayat and prays that he himself be declared as duly elected as the President and further prays that any other appropriate writ order or direction should be issued in that behalf.

(2.) The undisputed facts are these:- The petitioner was a member of Lodhika Taluka Panchayat in his capacity as the Sarpanch of the Lodhika Gram Panchayat. The respondent No. 1 was a member of the said Taluka Panchayat in his capacity as the elected chairman of the co-operative societies within the Taluka. On 24-1-1963 the respondent No. 1 was elected as the President of the Lodhika Taluka Panchayat. His tenure as the Chairman of his co-operative Society expired on 31-12-1963 and therefore he ceased to be a member of the Lodhika Taluka Panchayat. The District Development Officer who is respondent No. 3 having come to the conclusion that he viz. the respondent No. 1 ceased to be the President ordered a fresh election for the office of the President of the Lodhika Taluka Panchayat. That fresh election took place on 24-1-1964. By that time the respondent No. 1 had again become eligible for election. He and the petitioner were the two contestants in the election to the office of the President. The Presiding Officer at the meeting where the election took place was respondent No. 2. In that election the respondent No. 1 was declared by the Presiding Officer as duly elected. He had secured according to the Rojkam (proceedings) 21 valid votes as against 19 secured by the petitioner. The petitioner challenges that election.

(3.) The challenge to the election is on three grounds:- viz (1) Two persons who were entitled to vote at the election were wrongly prevented by the Presiding Officer to vote. These two persons according to the petitioner were one Ranubha Tapubha and one Bharatsinhji Harisinh. According to the petitioner Ranubha Tapubha was the Up-Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat and as such he was entitled to vote but was prevented by the Presiding Officer from exercising his right to vote on the ground that he was not a Sarpanch. As regards Bharatsinhji Harisinh who was the Sarpanch of Pal Pipalia and was as such entitled to vote the Presiding Officer took the view that he being a part-time Government servant had become disqualified. The petitioners contention is that in both these cases the Presiding Officer was in error. (2) Two votes were wrongly rejected as invalid. It appears from the averments made in para 10 of the petition read along with the Rojkam produced along with the affidavit in reply that three ballot papers were rejected by the Presiding Officer. Of these three ballot papers two ballot papers were marked with the required crosses against the name of the petitioner but those marks were not placed in the column set apart for the voters mark. On that ground the ballot papers were rejected. The petitioners contention is that this rejection was contrary to law and illegal. (3) The Presiding Officerrespondent No. 2 had according to the petitioner no right to vote at the election but had voted in favour of respondent No. 1. These are therefore the three grounds on which the election in this case is challenged by the petitioner.