ep1.21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ELECTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2021 SIDDHESHWAR ATMARAM MUNDE VERSUS SATISH BHANUDASRAO CHAVAN Mr. A. N. Sabnis, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. N. B. Khandare, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. A. G. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No. 1 CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J DATE : AUGUST 18, 2026 P. C. : 1. This petition is filed under section 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by the petitioner takes exception to Election Result dated 04/12/2020 declared by Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Graduates Constituency, Aurangabad (for short “MLAGC”) declaring Respondent as elected. The election results is challaged on the ground that there were several illegalities i.e. excess and blank ballot sheets were found on the voting booths, difference of number of ballot papers counted and votes polled, so also several ballot papers included in ballot polls were not signed. 2. The petition is being filed on the ground of commission of corrupt practice as provided in section 123 (7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The present petitioner prayed that election of the Respondent in 2026:BHC-AUG:38163 ep1.21.odt Aurangabad Division Graduates' Constituency, 2020 whereby respondent was declared elected as member of Maharashtra legislative Assembly Graduates' Constituency be declared as void as per section 100(1)(d) (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 3. The present case stems from result declared whereby the Respondent was declared as elected as member of Maharashtra legislative Assembly Graduates' and Teachers Constituency and that he allegedly secured results using malpractice and coercion. It's the case that petitioner claims to be an aspiring politician whose term in Maharashtra Legislative Council expired on 19/07/2020 along with the respondent. The petitioner desirous to contest election in Maharashtra legislative Assembly Graduates' and Teachers Constituency filed nomination papers on 11/11/2020 pursuant to notification dated 02/11/2020. So also the respondent contested along with other 35 candidates including present petitioner and respondent. 4. It's further case that as per the election program, on 01/12/2020 polls were conducted to elect members from Maharashtra legislative Assembly Graduates' Constituency. On 03/12/2020 the counting of votes polled commenced and on 04/12/2020 an objection was raised by present petitioner along with other 5 candidates alleging that there are blank ballot papers found which are not signed by the Presiding officers from the polling stations, there are discrepancies in the ballot papers which is not as per ep1.21.odt Form No. 16 and excess number of ballot papers found and are needed to carry separate counting in some specific polling stations. 5. On the very same day the objection came to be rejected by the Returning Officer observing that since counting of ballot papers has commenced objection taken is out of place, so also the respondent was declared as elected from Maharashtra legislative Assembly Graduates' Constituency, Aurangabad Division. After some time after rejection of objection, the petitioner submitted detailed representation to Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra on 14/12/2020 pointing out several illegalities being done indicating evidence of corrupt practice so also collusion and conspiracy of the returning officer from the commencement of election, which bore no fruitful outcome in petitioner favour. The present petitioner, left with no other remedy, invoked inherent powers under section 482 of CRPC. Thus, the present petition came to be lodged. 6. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that the petitioner sought withdrawal of present petition. However, in view of embargo on Election Petition being withdrawn in accordance with section 110(2) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, Registry was directed to issue notice to public at large calling upon objections, if any. Notice was duly published and objections were invited. However, consequently, no objections were received. Page 3 of 7 ep1.21.odt 7. No evidence is led before this court by parties or anyone else. The petition therefore is decided on the basis of the material placed on record and undisputed facts appearing therefrom. 8. For the purpose of effectively deciding the present petition, reference can be made to Rule 63 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 which is reproduced below: - “Section 63. Re-count of votes. (1) After the completion of the counting, the returning officer shall record in the result sheet in Form 20 the total number of votes polled by each candidate and announce the same. (2) [ After such announcement has been made, a candidate or, in his absence, his election agent or any of his counting agents may apply in writing to the returning officer to re-count the votes either wholly or in part stating the grounds on which the demands such re-count.] [ Substituted by S.O. 3662, dated 12.10.1964.] (3) On such an application being made the returning officer shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject it in toto if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. (4) Every decision of the returning officer under sub-rule (3) shall be in writing and contain the reasons therefor. (5) [ If the returning officer decides under sub-rule (3) to allow a re- count of the votes either wholly or in part, he shall- (a) do the re-counting in accordance with ] [rule 54-A,] [ Inserted by S.O. 3450, dated 9.11.1966.][rule 56 or rule 56-A, as the case may be; [Substituted by S.O. 3662, dated 12.10.1964. ] (b) amend the result sheet in Form 20 to the extent necessary after such re-count; and ep1.21.odt (c) announce the amendments so made by him.] (6) After the total number of votes polled by each candidate has been announced under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (5), the returning officer shall complete and sign the result sheet in Form 20 and no application for a re-count shall be entertained thereafter: Provided that no step under this sub-rule shall be taken on the completion of the counting until the candidates and election agents present at the completion thereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right conferred by sub-rule (2). 9. The above enumerated Rule 63 which provides for re-count of vote contemplates that if during the course of counting it is found that ballots are not being properly scrutinized and counted, objection can be raised from the side of the candidates and that objection should be raised within the course of counting and if it is found to be correct then the returning officer can direct the recounting and after the recounting is over he shall amend the result sheet in Form 20 to the extent necessary after such re-count and shall announce the amendments so made by him. According to sub-rule 2, the candidate or his agent has a right to apply for re-count of votes either wholly or in part. 10. Perusal of the above rule makes it clear that objection should be raised within the course of counting and not afterwards. In the present case, as apparent from the record, an objection was raised by the petitioner along with others on 03/12/2020 at 23:45 hrs. The process of initial counting of ballot papers started at 08:00 hrs on 03/12/2020 and after the process of ep1.21.odt initial counting and subsequently mixing of ballot papers in bundles of 25, detailed counting commenced at 15:30 hrs and those ballot papers in which discrepancies were found were then and there declared as invalid under rule 72(2). During the process of initial counting no objection was raised by counting agents present at respective counting tables at relevant time. The objection-claim of recount of ballot papers polling station wise from candidates can be considered not after all bundles of ballot papers are mixed Thus, the objection was rightly rejected by the Returning Officer on 04/12/2020. 11. In so far as allegations with regards discrepancies noticed on ballot papers are concerned, the Returning Officer has passed an order dated 04/12/2020 recording that discrepancies were found at few polling stations ranging from 1 to 4 and the same was reported by counting supervisors. Afterwards, during the period when ballot papers were scrutinized for their validity at the time of first count as per rule 73 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, those ballot papers which were found to be invalid were properly rejected as per Rule 73(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The order passed by the Returning Officer is in consonance with the relevant rules. By no stretch of imagination it could be termed as corrupt practice. Thus, there is no proof of corrupt practice being adopted in the election in question. Page 6 of 7 ep1.21.odt Consequently, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani