Section 27 in The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961
27. Determination of validity of elections; enquiry by Judge; procedure.
(1)If the validity of any election of a councillor or the legality of any order made or proceedings held under section 26 is brought in question [by any candidate at such election or by] [These word were Inserted by Maharashtra 35 of 1963, Section 7(1)(a).] any person qualified to vote at the election to which such question refers [such candidate or person] [These word were substituted for the word 'such persons', by Maharashtra 35 of 1963, Section 7(1)(b).] may, at any time within fifteen days after the date of the declaration of the result of the election or the date of the order or proceeding apply to the District Judge of the district within which the election has been held, for the determination of such question.(2)An enquiry shall thereupon be held by a Judge, not below the rank of an Assistant Judge, appointed by the State Government either specially for the case or for such cases generally; and such Judge may, after such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass an order confirming or amending the declared result of the election or the order of [the officer empowered by the [State Election Commission] [These words were substituted for the word 'the Collector or any officer empowered by him' by Maharashtra 43 of 1962, section 5.] ] in that behalf under section 26, or setting the election aside. For the purposes of the said enquiry, the Judge may exercise any of the powers of a Civil Court, and his decision shall be conclusive. If the election is set aside, a date for holding a fresh election shall forthwith be fixed under section 14.(3)All applications received under sub-section (1)-(a)in which the validity of the election of Councillors to represent the same electoral division is in question, shall be heard by the same judge; and(b)in which the validity of the election of the same Councillor elected to represent the same electoral division is in question shall be heard together.(4)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Judge shall not permit-(a)any application to be compromised or withdrawn, or(b)Any person to alter or amend any pleading, unless he is satisfied that such application for compromise or withdrawal or application for such alteration or amendment is bona fide, and not collusive.(5)(a)If on holding such enquiry, the Judge finds that a candidate has, for the purpose of election, committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section (6) [or submitted a false claim or a false caste certificate] [These word were inserted by Maharashtra 34 of 2000, Section 5.], he shall declare the candidate disqualified for the purpose of that election and of such fresh election as may be held under sub-section (2) and shall set aside the election of such candidate if he has been elected.(b)If in any case to which clause (a) does not apply, the validity of an election is in dispute between two or more candidates, the Judge, after a scrutiny and computation of the votes recorded in favour of each candidate, is of opinion that in fact any candidate in whose favour the declaration is sought has received the highest number of the valid votes, the Judge shall after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void declare the candidate in whose favour the declaration is sought, to have been duly elected:Provided that, for the purpose of such computation no vote shall be reckoned as valid if the Judge finds that any corrupt practice was committed by any person, known or unknown, in giving or obtaining it:Provided further that, after such computation if any equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates and the addition of one vote will entitle any candidate to be declared elected, one additional vote shall be added to the total number of valid votes found to have been received in favour of such candidates selected by lot drawn in the presence of the Judge in such manner as he may determine.(6)Any of the corrupt practices specified in section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purpose of this section subject to the following modification in the said section 123, that is to say-(a)in clause (1), in sub-clause (B), in the explanation, the words and figures 'and duly entered in the account of election expenses referred to in section 78' shall be deleted;(b)in clause (5), for the words, figures and brackets 'provided under section 25 or a place fixed under sub-section (1) of section 29 for the poll' the words 'or any place fixed for poll in accordance with the provisions of rules made by the State Government in that behalf" shall be substituted :(c)clause (6) shall be deleted;(d)[in clause (7), for the words 'any person in the service of the Government' the words, brackets, letter and figures, 'any person in any District Service referred to in clause (b) of section 239 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 or from any person in the service of the Government' shall be substituted, and in item (g)] [This portion was substituted for 'in clause (7), In item (g)' by Maharashtra 35 of 1963, Section 7(2).] for the word "prescribed" the words "prescribed by rules made by the State Government in this behalf" shall be substituted.(7)If the validity of any election is brought in question only on the ground of an error made by the officer charged with carrying out the rules made in this behalf under sub-section (2) of section 12 or of section 14, or of an irregularity or informality not corruptly caused, the Judge shall not set aside the election.(8)If the Judge sets aside an election under clause (a) of sub-section (5) he may, if he thinks fit, declare any person by whom any corrupt practice has been committed within the meaning of this section to be disqualified from being a member of any Zilla Parishad for a term of years not exceeding five and the decision of the Judge shall be conclusive:Provided that, no such declaration shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
