Case Note & Summary
The case involves an election petition filed under Section 81 read with Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the respondent in the Biennial Election for the Maharashtra Legislative Council from the Nashik Local Authorities Members Constituency. The petitioner, the official candidate of the Shiv Sena party, and the respondent, the official candidate of the Nationalist Congress Party, were the only contesting candidates after withdrawals. Out of 475 eligible voters, 467 cast their votes. During counting, 23 ballot papers were invalidated. The petitioner alleged that four votes cast in his favour were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer, who then suo motu re-scrutinized ballot papers and further invalidated six votes, resulting in an equality of votes at 221 each. The Returning Officer conducted a draw of lots and declared the respondent elected. The petitioner claimed that the rejection of his four votes was contrary to law and that the Returning Officer should have followed Section 65 of the Act rather than Rule 75(4) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. He also argued that second preference votes should have been counted. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable due to non-compliance with Section 83(1)(c) of the Act, as the petition in English was signed and verified by the petitioner without interpretation into Marathi. The respondent also contended that seven of his votes were wrongly invalidated and that second preference votes were irrelevant in a two-candidate election. The court framed several issues, including the maintainability of the petition, the propriety of the rejection of votes, the applicability of Section 65 versus Rule 75(4), and the treatment of second preference votes. The judgment text provided is incomplete; it breaks off after noting the submissions regarding prayer clause (e) and does not contain the court's analysis or final decision. Therefore, the outcome and ratio decidendi are not available from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Maintainability of Election Petition - Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Respondent contended that the petition was not maintainable as the petition, in English, was signed and verified by the petitioner without interpretation into Marathi, his known language, and that the affidavit was later interpreted; thus, non-compliance with procedural requirements (Paras 8-9). B) Election Law - Improper Rejection of Votes - Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Petitioner challenged the Returning Officer's rejection of four first preference votes cast in his favour on the ground that the marking was unclear; petitioner argued the use of Roman numeral I was permitted under guidelines and the rejection was erroneous (Paras 4, 6-7, 11-12). C) Election Law - Equality of Votes and Draw of Lots - Section 65 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rule 75(4) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Upon equality of votes (221 each), Returning Officer conducted draw of lots and declared respondent elected; petitioner contended that Section 65 should have been followed instead of Rule 75(4) (Paras 5-6, 11-12). D) Election Law - Counting of Second Preference Votes - Second preference votes in election with two candidates - Petitioner argued that second preference votes cast in his favour should have been credited to him, while respondent contended that in a two-candidate contest, second preference votes are irrelevant (Paras 4, 8, 11).
Issue of Consideration
1. Whether four first preference votes cast in favour of the petitioner were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act? 2. Whether in the event of equality of votes, the Returning Officer ought to have followed the procedure under Section 65 of the Act rather than invoking Rule 75 of the Rules? 3. Whether second preference votes cast in favour of the petitioner ought to have been credited to the petitioner by the Returning Officer?
Law Points
- improper rejection of votes
- Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- equality of votes
- draw of lots
- Rule 75(4) of Conduct of Election Rules
- 1961
- second preference votes
- procedural compliance of Section 83(1)(c)
- applicability of Section 65 of the Act
