Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Aarti w/o Santosh Pawar, was the Upa-Sarpanch of Grampanchyat Pangri, District Jalna. She challenged the judgment and order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner-1, Aurangabad, which had upheld the Collector's order setting aside her election. The election to the post of Upa-Sarpanch was held on 10.02.2021 by show of hands, despite a demand for secret ballot by respondent No. 4. The Collector allowed the dispute filed by respondent No. 4, holding the election illegal. The Additional Divisional Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The High Court examined Rule 5(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1962, which states that voting shall be by show of hands unless a poll is demanded. The court noted that the word 'may' in the rule gives discretion to the Presiding Officer. Since no poll was demanded, the election by show of hands was valid. The court held that the demand for secret ballot alone does not invalidate the election. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Collector and Additional Divisional Commissioner, and restored the election of the petitioner as Upa-Sarpanch.
Headnote
A) Local Self-Government - Election of Upa-Sarpanch - Mode of Voting - Rule 5(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1962 - The court considered whether election by show of hands is valid when a demand for secret ballot was made. Held that Rule 5(2) does not mandate secret ballot unless a poll is demanded; the Presiding Officer may decide the mode. The demand for secret ballot alone does not invalidate the election. (Paras 5-8) B) Local Self-Government - Election of Upa-Sarpanch - Demand for Poll - Rule 5(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1962 - The court held that the word 'may' in Rule 5(2) gives discretion to the Presiding Officer. A demand for secret ballot must be accompanied by a demand for poll to make secret ballot mandatory. Since no poll was demanded, the election by show of hands was valid. (Paras 6-8) C) Local Self-Government - Election of Upa-Sarpanch - Appeal - Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The court upheld the Additional Divisional Commissioner's order setting aside the Collector's decision. The Collector had erroneously set aside the election based on the demand for secret ballot alone. The High Court restored the election of the petitioner. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election of the petitioner to the post of Upa-Sarpanch by show of hands is illegal when a demand for secret ballot was made by a member.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner and the order of the Collector, and restored the election of the petitioner as Upa-Sarpanch of Grampanchyat Pangri.
Law Points
- Election by show of hands is valid when no poll is demanded
- Secret ballot is not mandatory under Rule 5(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules
- 1962
- The Presiding Officer has discretion to decide mode of voting
- Demand for secret ballot must be followed by a demand for poll to trigger mandatory secret ballot
