SADASHIV VISHNU NAGARKAR Vs. MARUTI BALOBA VYAVAHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications are directed against the orders of the Election Court setting aside the elections of the respective petitioners. In Special Civil Application No. 1911 of 1968 the two petitioners and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and two others were candidates for the general constituency in Ward No. 2 of the village Karkamb in Pandharpur Taluka. The election programme published by the Tahsildar was as follows:--On December 21, 1967, two of the candidates filed an application for withdrawal from the election. The returning officer published on December 23, 1967, the list of candidates omitting the names of those who had withdrawn. Elections were held In accordance with the programme on December 29, 1967, and the results of the election were declared on the next day.

(2.) AT the poll petitioner No. 1, Sada-shiv Nagarkar secured 366 votes, petitioner No, 2, Pandharinath Dudhane secured 345 votes, respondent No. 1 Maruti secured 325 votes and respondent No. 2 Vithal secured 324 votes. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 contested for reserved seat. Respondent No. 5 is the returning Officer. Respondent No. 6 is the village Grampanchayat -- Respondent No. 7 is the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur and respondent No. 8 is the Tahsildar of Pandharpur. Respondent No. 1 filed the application for setting aside the election of the petitioners on the ground that the withdrawal by the two candidates on December 21, 1967, of the date having been fixed by the Tahsildar for the same, was not in accordance with the terms of Rule 13 of the Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1959) framed by the State Government under the Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1958 ). The whole election, therefore, suffers from invalidity and it should be ordered afresh. It was contended before the learned Judge that the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules 1959, are mandatory and that the withdrawal not being in accordance with the same, the candidates still continued to be candidates for the election, that their names should have been notified for the purpose and that the voters should have been entitled to vote for them. As Returning Officer did not do this, the elections ought to be declared as invalid. The contention appealed to the learned Judge and he accordingly set aside the election. The two petitioners contended that the learned Judge was not right in the view that he took.

(3.) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 1934 of 1968 relates to elections in the same village in Ward No. 5 and the contention in this case also is the same.