1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7321 OF 2008 Pandit S/o Vithalrao Dhumal .. .. Appellant Versus 1. The State Election Commissioner and others .. .. Respondents Shri Vinayak D. Hon, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Respondents No. 5 and 6. Shri S. S. Manale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 9 The Respondents No. 7, 8 and 10 are served. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 199 OF 2009 Pandit S/o Vithalrao Dhumal .. .. Appellant Versus 1. The State Election Commissioner and others .. .. Respondents Shri Vinayak D. Hon, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Respondents No. 5 and 6. Shri S. S. Manale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 8 The Respondents No. 6, 7, 9 are served. 2 CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2010. COURT'S ORDER [ PER N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 1. These two Letters Patent Appeals question the correctness of judgment and order dated 06th August, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, while disposing of two Writ Petitions No. 7321 of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 199 of 2009 thereby allowing the amendment proposed to be incorporated in two elections petitions, separately filed by respondent No. 6 Satish Patil and respondent No. 5 Venkat respectively thereby challenging election of appellant Pandit Vithalrao Dhumal under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act 1961. 02. In both the election petitions, common grounds were alleged that, the appellant has not sought permission from competent authority of Terna Charitable Trust and Lalbahadur Shastri Vidyalaya, Nilanga and certain properties have not been disclosed. Then an application for amendment came to be filed for incorporating paragraph No. 9A to 9I, purported to be under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code in respect of election petitions. After hearing both the sides, learned District Judge - Nilanga, was pleased to allow the amendment application in Election Petition NO. 04/2007, however amendment application in Election Petition NO. 05/2007 came to be rejected. Thus, in respect of same amendment one application is granted and another was rejected. As 3 such, petitioner in Election Petition NO. 05/2007 by writ petition No. 1298/2008 impugned the order of rejection of amendment application. Another Writ Petition No. 1413/2008 also came to be filed by the party respondent No. 5 against whom the amendment application was granted. Both the writ petitions earlier came to be decided by common judgment dated 12.08.2008 and both the matters were remanded for deciding application afresh. 03. Pursuant to the order dated 12th August, 2008 of learned Single Judge, learned District Judge - I, Nilanga heard both the sides and maintained its earlier order passed in these two election petitions as aforesaid on 30.09.2008. The respective contesting parties again challenged the order of amendment application in writ petitions as identical question of fact and law involved in both these petitions namely Writ Petition No. 7321/2008 and Writ Petition No. 199/2009. Both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by common judgment by order dated 06th August, 2009 by learned Single Judge of this Court. The said order is being challenged separately in these two letters patent appeals by appellant Pandit Dhumal in L.P.A. No. 179/2009 and 180/2009. 04. Perused the impugned orders. In the light of submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant Shri V. D. Hon, who relied on the observations made in the case, reported in (2005)4 SCC 480 Kailash Vs. Nanhku and others. In the matter of procedure and applicability of Civil Procedure Code provided for Trial of Civil Suits under C.P.C. which is not applicable in its entirety to Trial of Election Petitions. 4 05. Learned Single has discussed the issue of amendment with reference to Section 27 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act 1961 dealing with determination of validity of election enquiry by Judge. We deem it feet to reproduce the relevant provision as under : “S.27. Determination of validity of elections; enquiry by Judge ; procedure: (1) ....... (2) ....... (3) ....... (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), the Judge shall not permit (a) ...... (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." 06. Thus there is room for amendment if it is bona fide and not collusive. Learned Single Judge in its order made elaborate discussion and considered various authorities cited,about validity of the amendments in both the Election Petitions and came to its conclusion in para 14 of the judgment and allowed proposed amendment in para No. 9A to 9H and rejected proposed amendment in para 9I in Election Petition NO. 05/2007 and so far Election Petition NO. 04/2007 is concerned maintained the proposed amendment sought in para No. 9A to 9H and rejected amendment in 5 para No. 9I. The proposed amendment to the extent it is allowed goes to elaborate the ground already taken in the Election Petition. The amendment does not go to permit raising of an additional ground. The amendment being clarificatory in nature the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the same. We concur with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. Consequently both the Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 2010