Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Meena Dilip Aware, and respondent no.4, Vaishali Kailas Kadu, were candidates for the post of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Bhugaon. Elections were held on 09.05.2015 by secret ballot. The Returning Officer declared that both candidates had secured equal votes and proceeded to draw lots. Respondent nos.4 to 8 filed a dispute under Section 33(5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 before the Additional Collector, who upheld the Returning Officer's decision. An appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner, who examined the ballot papers and found that respondent no.4 had received five votes while the petitioner had received four votes, thereby setting aside the Additional Collector's order. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court. The main legal issue was whether a ballot paper marked with a tick mark was valid. The petitioner argued that the tick mark did not clearly indicate the voter's intention and that the fifth vote should not be counted. The respondents contended that the tick mark was a clear expression of choice. The court analyzed the ballot paper and held that the tick mark was sufficient to indicate the voter's intention, making the vote valid. Consequently, there was no tie, and the Additional Commissioner's order was correct. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Additional Commissioner's decision.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Sarpanch Election - Validity of Ballot Paper - Section 33(5) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The court considered whether a ballot paper marked with a tick instead of a cross or other mark is valid. Held that the tick mark clearly indicated the voter's intention and was a valid vote. The Additional Commissioner correctly counted it in favor of respondent no.4. (Paras 3-5) B) Election Law - Drawing of Lots - When Not Permissible - Section 33(5) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The Returning Officer declared a tie and proceeded to draw lots. However, the court held that since the ballot paper in question was valid, there was no tie, and the Additional Commissioner rightly set aside the order of the Additional Collector. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner was justified in holding that the respondent no.4 had received five votes, and whether the ballot paper with a tick mark was valid.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 29.10.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner is upheld.
Law Points
- Election law
- Interpretation of ballot papers
- Validity of tick mark
- Section 33(5) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1959
- Drawing of lots
- Appellate jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner
