CHANDRAKALA W/O DNYANOBA SURYAWANSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for Petitioners seeks leave to delete Respondent Nos.4 to 7. Leave granted. Necessary amendment to be carried out forthwith.

(2.) HEARD. Rule. Looking to the nature of controversy, heard finally with consent of parties.

(3.) THE adjudication of controversy is covered by section 33(5) because it is a dispute in relation to election of Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Facts also show that because lots were drawn, both petitioners got elected. Thus, there would not have been equality of votes had respondent No.3 attended the meeting and caste his vote in favour of any of the parties. It is also to be noted that defeated candidates i.e. Respondent Nos.5 and 7 have not challenged drawing of lots in that election.