AARTI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is by Upa-Sarpanch of the Grampanchyat, Pangri, Tq. Mantha, District Jalna, challenging the proceedings and subsequent orders in respect of an election to the post of Upa-Sarpanch. The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dtd. 16/11/2021 passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner-1, Aurangabad in an appeal filed by the petitioner, whereby an order is passed by the learned Collector in a dispute filed by respondent No. 4. The learned Collector by the judgment and order allowed the dispute holding that election of the petitioner to the post of Upa-Sarpanch is illegal and set aside the election.

(2.) The facts in short are as follows : An election to the post of 11 members to the Grampanchyat was held in the month of January, 2021. The post of Sarpanch was reserved for persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. After the election to the post of members was over, a meeting was convened to hold an election to the post of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch on 10/2/2021. In the said meeting respondent No. 4/disputant requested the Presiding Officer to hold voting by way of secret ballot. The said request was turned down and election was taken by raising of hands. A dispute, therefore, came to be filed alleging that since an election was held by raising hands. Though there was a specific demand of vote by secret ballot, the said was turned down illegally. It is prayed to cancel the proceedings of the special meeting.

(3.) The petitioner and the Sarpanch namely Parmeshwar Mankar filed their say. It is the case of the petitioner that for the post of Sarpanch there was only one nomination and there was no question of voting for the post of Sarpanch. An application filed to hold an election by secret ballot was for the post of Sarpanch and not for the post of Upa-Sarpanch. Since there was no need of voting for the post of Sarpanch, an application for voting by the secret ballot was rejected. Though an election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch is taken in the same meeting, however, technically there are two different proceedings for election of these two posts. An application for secret ballot was thus for the post of Sarpanch and not for Upa-Sarpanch. Rejection and refusal of secret ballot was thus, for the post of Sarpanch. No election process is in any way was affected so far as an election to the post of Upa-Sarpanch is concerned.