DAJIBA GURUNATH GAVANE Vs. SANGAPPA SHARANAPPA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Arts 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the three petitioners pray that an appropriate writ or direction be issued declaring applicant No. 2 as validity elected to one of the two general seats and the order of the Opponent No. 6 declaring Opponent No, 1 as elected be quashed.

(2.) THE facts in brief are: an election was held for electing three representatives from Ward No, II of village Karjal in Taluka Akkalkot to a village panchayat by name Karjal-Halhauli Group Grampanchayat. Two out of the three representatives that were to be elected were for the general seats and one for the seat reserved for scheduled caste. For the two general seats four candidates contested, viz. , Dajiba Gurunath Gavane, Somshankar Shivlingappa Swami, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 before us, and Sangappa Sharnappa Patil and Shivbasappa Shiddappa Tambrke, opponents Nos. 1 and 2 before us. Petitioner No. 3 Vithal Babu Hotkar and opponent No. 3 Irappa Sharanappa Ingale, were the two contesting candidates for one reserved seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes. Respondent No. 4, who had been the returning Officer, after counting he votes declared that Dajiba Gurunath Gavane petitioner No. 1 had secured 105 votes, Somshankar Shivilingappa Swami, petitioner No, 2 had secured 94 votes. Sangappa Sharanappa Patil, opponent No, 1 had secured 93 votes, and Shivbasappa Shiddappa Tambrke, Opponent No. 2 had secured 73 votes. He therefore, declared Dajiba Gurunath and Somshankar shivlingappa as having been elected representatives for the general seats. As regards the representatives for the reserved seat, the Returning Officer declared that petitioner No. 3 Vithal Babu Hotkar had secured 92 votes and Irappa Sharanappa Ingale, opponent No,. 3 had secured 86 votes. ON this basis he declared petitioner No. 3. Vithal Babu Hotkar, as successful candidate representing the reserved seat. It may be stated that at the counting of the votes 23 ballot papers were challenged on the ground that the voters had made on these ballot papers more than one mark against the same candidate. The contention was that by making more than one had cast more than one vote in favour of one candidate and that rendered the ballot paper void. It appears that this objection was sustained by the Returning Officer in respect of 18 ballot papers, but was rejected in respect of five ballot papers bearing Nos. 25, 47, 105, 146 and 189. The aforesaid result has been declared after rejecting 18 ballot papers on the aforesaid ground.

(3.) NOW opponent No. 1 alone challenged the election on various grounds. It is necessary to state that opponent No. 1 was a candidate only for the general seat. Though the election has been challenged by opponent No. 1 Sangappa Sharanappa on various grounds only on contention raised on his behalf had been accepted by respondent No. 6 who heard the election petition. In he recounting it was found that in the aforesaid five ballot papers, viz. , 25, 47, 105, 146 and 189 there were double marks put by the voters against one and the same candidate. the actual marking has been described in the following terms in paragraph 17 of the order of respondent No. 6: