SIDDHESHWAR ATMARAM MUNDEversusSATISH BHANUDASRAO CHAVAN

2026:BHC-AUG:38163
                                                                                  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



                                                Page 1 of 7
                                                                    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


                                  Page 2 of 7
                                                                      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



                                  Page 4 of 7
                                                                      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


                                   Page 5 of 7
                                                                       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




                                 Page 7 of 7