Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sau. Kalpana w/o Laxman Bhujbal, was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mategaon on 29.8.2010. During the meeting, after a majority voted by show of hands in her favour, respondent no. 5 demanded that the election be held by secret ballot. Despite this demand, the Returning Officer proceeded with the election by show of hands. Respondent no. 5 filed a reference application under Section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before the Additional Collector, who by order dated 15.12.2010 set aside the election, finding it vitiated. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Commissioner, who upheld the Collector's order. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The petitioner argued that under Rule 10 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upsarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, election by show of hands is the rule and secret ballot is an exception, and that the proceedings were correctly recorded. The respondent argued that the demand for secret ballot was made before the election and the Returning Officer ignored it. The High Court held that the election by show of hands after a demand for secret ballot was contrary to Rule 10(2) and therefore vitiated. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Sarpanch Election - Secret Ballot Demand - Rule 10 of Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upsarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 - The petitioner was elected by show of hands despite a demand for secret ballot by respondent no. 5. The Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner set aside the election, holding it vitiated. The High Court upheld the decision, finding that the election by show of hands after a demand for secret ballot is contrary to Rule 10(2) and therefore void. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch by show of hands, after a demand for secret ballot, is valid under Rule 10 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upsarpanch) Election Rules, 1964.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner setting aside the election of the petitioner.
Law Points
- Election by show of hands after demand for secret ballot is void
- Rule 10 of Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upsarpanch) Election Rules
- 1964
- Section 33 of Bombay Village Panchayats Act
- 1958
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (04) 152
Writ Petition No. 490 of 2012
Mr. P.R. Agrawal for Petitioner; Mr. A.S. Fulzele, AGP for Respondent nos. 1,2 & 3; None for Respondents 4 & 5
Sau. Kalpana w/o Laxman Bhujbal
Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati; Additional Collector, Yavatmal; Presiding Officer, Election of Sarpanch & UpSarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mategaon; Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mategaon; Ravindra Gajanan Jagtap
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders of Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner setting aside election of petitioner as Sarpanch.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of orders dated 15.12.2010 and appellate order upholding it, and restoration of her election as Sarpanch.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's election as Sarpanch was set aside on the ground that it was held by show of hands despite a demand for secret ballot.
Previous Decisions
Additional Collector set aside election on 15.12.2010; Additional Commissioner upheld that order on appeal.
Issues
Whether the election of the petitioner by show of hands after a demand for secret ballot is valid under Rule 10 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upsarpanch) Election Rules, 1964.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that under Rule 10, election by show of hands is the rule and secret ballot is an exception, and the proceedings were correctly recorded.
Respondent argued that the demand for secret ballot was made before the election and the Returning Officer ignored it, vitiating the election.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Rule 10(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upsarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, if a demand for secret ballot is made, the election must be held by secret ballot. Holding the election by show of hands after such demand vitiates the election.
Judgment Excerpts
He relied upon the provisions of Rule 10 of The Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upsarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 to contend that as per subrule (2) thereof holding of election by showing of hands is rule while holding of election by secret ballot is an exception.
The first authority, namely Additional Collector, has applied mind and in the order dated 15.12.2010 found that when there was a demand for holding election to the post of Sarpanch by secret ballot, there could not have been an election by show of hands.
Procedural History
The petitioner was elected Sarpanch on 29.8.2010. Respondent no. 5 filed a reference under Section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before the Additional Collector, who set aside the election on 15.12.2010. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Commissioner, who upheld the order. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 21.2.2012, and the High Court passed an interim order protecting her. The writ petition was dismissed on 13.4.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958: 33
- Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upsarpanch) Election Rules, 1964: 10
