Bombay High Court
Sagar Shashikant Salunkhe vs The State Of Maharashtra Htrough Its ... on 2 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:16806-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5336 OF 2024
Sagar Shashikant Salunkhe,
Age 36 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Khedgaon, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
... Petitioner
... Versus ...
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through it's Secretary,
Co-operative Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2 The District Election Officer,
(The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce
Market Committee)/ District
Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon.
3 The Returning Officer/Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Chalisgaon,
Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.
4 Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.
5 Shailendra Vijaysing Patil,
Age 45 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Opp. Sanjivani Hospital,
Bhadgaon road, Chalisgaon,
Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.
6 Dagdu Bhimrao Mali,
Age 51 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
2 WP_5336_2024_Jd
R/o Pohare, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
7 Yashwant Bhaskar Chavan,
Age 38 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Shirasgaon, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
8 Naval Bhimrao Pawar,
Age 54 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Dahiwad, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
9 Ashok Jagatsing Patil,
Age 50 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Jamda, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
10 Kapil Shivaji Patil,
Age 53 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Bahal, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
11 Kishor Bhikan Patil,
Age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Karajgaon, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
12 Dinesh Sahebrao Patil,
Age 49 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Borkheda (Bk),
Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.
13 Pradip Subhash Patil,
Age 57 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Don-Digar, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
14 Mahendra Sitaram Patil,
Age 62 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Kakadne, Post Talode Digar,
3 WP_5336_2024_Jd
Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.
15 Ravindra Shivram Patil,
Age 53 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Nandre, Post Talode Digar,
Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.
16 Rajendra Baburao Patil,
Age 50 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Malshevge, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
17 Sanjay Nagraj Patil,
Age 47 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Talode Digar,
Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.
18 Rajendra Kashinath Mali,
Age 54 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Mandurne, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
... Respondents
...
Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. P.D. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1
Mr. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3
Mr. S.V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.4
Mr. D.B. Thoke, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 and 6
Respondent Nos.7 to 18 - served
...
CORAM : S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 30th JULY, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 02nd AUGUST, 2024
4 WP_5336_2024_Jd
JUDGMENT :
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocates
for the parties finally, by consent.
2 The petitioner impugns order dated 06.03.2024 passed by
respondent No.2 rejecting application submitted by petitioner to call for
Record and Proceeding, ballet papers and boxes in respect of election held on
28.04.2023. Petitioner contends that he was the candidate for election of
respondent No.4 - Agricultural Produce Market Committee. He secured 442
votes and consequently declared to be elected, however, respondent No.5,
who had secured 440 votes, applied for recounting. Returning Officer
recounted votes of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Although there was no change in
votes under pressure of local MLA shown that petitioner and respondent No.5
secured equal votes i.e. 440 each and then by adopting lottery system
declared respondent No.5 to be elected candidate.
3 Petitioner submitted election dispute before District Election
Officer/District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon assailing
validity of election under Section 72-A of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Produce Market Committee (Election to Committee) Rules, 2017. Petitioner
has specifically pleaded that result of recounting is incorrect. Request of
5 WP_5336_2024_Jd
petitioner for recounting was not accepted. Votes casted in favour of
petitioner have been wrongly discarded. Petitioner further contends that
figure of invalid votes remained constant as 86 votes before and after
recounting. Consequently, votes of petitioner could not have been reduced
from 442 to 440.
4 On 06.03.2024 petitioner filed an application that Record and
Proceeding of election along with ballet boxes be called from Returning
Officer, so that decision on issues raised on petition for the election dispute
can be appropriately taken. However, petitioner's prayer came to be rejected
on the ground that recounting was done in presence of all concerned.
Therefore, there is no necessity to call for record as prayed by petitioner.
5 Heard Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for
petitioner, Mr. P.D. Patil, learned AGP appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. S.K.
Kadam, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mr. S.V.
Suryawanshi, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.4 and Mr. D.B.
Thoke, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
6 Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner
relying upon contents of petition submits that for effective disposal of
election dispute, Record and Proceeding along with ballet boxes is required
6 WP_5336_2024_Jd
to be called and preserved from Returning Officer.
7 On other hand, Mr. D.B. Thoke, learned Advocate appearing for
respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that petitioner has not raised timely
objection when recounting was done. He would submit that after recounting
of votes procedure contemplated under Section 64 was followed. Petitioner
has voluntarily participated in lots. As such, now, petitioner cannot raise
objection to procedure and ask for calling of Record and Proceeding of
election along with ballet boxes from Returning Officer. According to him,
the prayer is afterthought.
8 Having considered submissions advanced, it can be observed that
at initial stage election results were declared and petitioner was found to
have secured 442 votes. Consequently, he was declared as elected candidate
amongst others. Respondent No.5 had secured 440 votes and he was
defeated candidate. Thereafter recounting was carried at the instance of
respondent No.5, wherein petitioner and respondent No.5 are shown to have
secured 440 votes each. Pertinently, at initial counting figure of invalid votes
is shown as - 86, however, figure of total votes have been changed from 6436
to 6435. Figure of valid votes also changed from 6350 to 6349. Number of
votes secured by petitioner have been reduced by two (02), when number of
valid votes have been reduced by one (01). Looking to figure as indicated
7 WP_5336_2024_Jd
above and allegations in election dispute raised on behalf of petitioner, it is
apparent that access to ballet boxes and recounting/re-examining of votes
may be necessary. Part XI of Election Rules of 2017 provides for custody and
disposal of election papers. Returning Officer is under obligation to maintain
record relating of election up to six months from the date of declaration of
result and in case of election dispute it can be preserved beyond period of six
months. In present case, looking to nature of dispute involved, prayer of
petitioner could have been acceded to, so that fair and proper decision can be
arrived in election dispute.
9 In that view of the matter, writ petition deserves to be partly
allowed. Hence, following order.
ORDER
1 Writ Petition is partly allowed.
2 The impugned order dated 06.03.2024 is quashed and set aside.
3 The Returning Officer shall maintain custody of ballet boxes,
papers and election record in safe custody till hearing and final disposal of
election dispute and make available such record to Presiding Officer/District
Election Officer in-charge of election dispute, as and when directed at
8 WP_5336_2024_Jd
appropriate stage of recording evidence.
4 Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR )
JUDGE
agd
