RAMDAS MOTIRAMJI MATODE Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AMRAVATI DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, by which the Writ Petition filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was allowed, holding that the orders passed by the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner declaring the elections of the respondents as Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of village Wadhona-Ramnath in Amravati District is valid in law. The controversy involved in the matter is as under.

(3.) In the elections of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of village Wadhona Ramnath, there was equality of votes. The Returning Officer, therefore, decided in accordance with section 33(4) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1960 and Rule 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 to declare the result of the elections according to a draw of lots. The Returning Officer, therefore, put two chits of the two candidates who had drawn equal number of votes, in one box for the post of Sarpanch and in another box the Returning Officer similarly placed two chits of the names of the two candidates for the post of Up-Sarpanch. In addition to the chits containing names of two candidates holding equal number of- votes, the Returning Officer added 4 blank chits in both the boxes. For drawing the slip, he called a young boy of 12 years and asked him to pick up a chit. In the process the Returning Officer then declared the candidate whose chit was picked up by the young boy, as the elected candidate. For the post of Sarpanch the candidate was Suresh Kisanrao Gaidhane. The same procedure was repeated for the second candidate. On the post of Up-Sarpanch the person elected was respondent No. 7-Krushna Daulat Banarase. What has given rise to the controversy is not any error in declaring the name of the candidates whose chits was picked up by the young boy, but the fact that along with the chits of two candidates, the Returning Officer has put in 4 blank chits. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants before us, the process of putting the blank chits has resulted into prejudice to the contesting candidates, inasmuch as there is no provision of introducing blank chits in the box while drawing the lot.