LAWS(BOM)-1964-1-3

EKNATH SHANKAR LONKAR Vs. GORAKH KRISHNA PATIL

Decided On January 30, 1964
Eknath Shankar Lonkar Appellant
V/S
Gorakh Krishna Patil Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, by which the petitioners, who were originally returned as elected members in a Gram Panchayat election, have challenged the order of the Election Tribunal under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act declaring their election to be invalid.

(2.) PETITIONERS Nos. 1 and 2 were candidates for election to two general seats in ward No. 1 in elections held for constitution of a Panchayat for village Shegaon Buzruk. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 were also candidates for the same seats. In all three seats were to be filled, two general seats and one reserved. Respondents Nos. 1 and 7 contested the election to the reserved seat as also petitioner No. 3 Doma. All the three petitioners were declared elected to the respective seats for which they contested at a poll held on January 10, 1961. The results were declared on January 11, 1961. Thereafter respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed election petition No. 10 of 1961 and respondent No. 5 filed election petition No. 12 of 1961 before the Tribunal constituted under Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, challenging the election of the present petitioners on various grounds. These petitions were filed on January 27, 1961. Though the petitioners' election was challenged on various grounds, the only ground on which the respondents succeeded before the Election Tribunal was that the election was vitiated because of the Election Officer allotting identical symbols to several candidates and not allotting separate and distinguishing symbol to each of the contesting candidates. The petitions were resisted in the lower Court by the present petitioners on several grounds, amongst which was raised a ground of limitation. The Tribunal held that the petitions could not be said to have been filed beyond limitation.

(3.) BUT the crucial question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the view taken by the Tribunal as regards the provisions of Rules 16 and 17 of the Election Rules under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act have been followed by allotment of identical symbols to more than one candidate, and further, whether even if there is an infraction of these rules it could be said that the whole election was liable to be set aside only on that account.