JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:-Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Elections to the Village Panchayat, Salgaon Partur Taluk of Jalna District took place on 5th November, 1992. Petitioners 1 and 2 were declared by the Returning Officer as having been elected from Ward No. 2 since they secured 84 and 83 votes respectively by granting a certificate duly signed. It appears that four days thereafter i.e. on 11th November, 1992, an objection was raised to the validity of the said counting and the Returning Officer was pleased to recount the votes and found that instead of the petitioners, respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to be declared elected since they have secured more votes than the petitioners. Therefore, on 11th November, 1992, respondents 3 and 4 namely, Kalavatibai and Rajaram came to be declared as having been elected to Village Panchayat Salgaon from Ward No. 2 from woman reserved and general constituencies respectively. This action of the Returning Officer has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. Elections of the Village Panchayat established under section 5 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 are governed by the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959. Rule 34 of the said rules requires the Returning Officer to prepare a statement showing the number of votes recorded and then declare the candidates who are elected. As soon as the said declaration is made, Rule 35 enables a candidate or, in his absence his election agent to apply in writing to the Returning Officer for a recount of all or any of the ballot papers already counted stating the grounds on which he demands such recount. Sub-rule (2) of the said rule contemplates a decision by the Returning Officer meaning thereby that he should hear the affected persons and apply his mind to the said prayer and then take a decision whether the application for the recount is to be allowed in whole or in part or is to be rejected in toto. Sub-Rule (4) of the said rule lays down that after the recount, if any, the statement showing the number of votes recorded shall be amended and the amendment so made along with the result shall be declared. Sub-Rule (4) of the said rule lays down that after the recount, if any, the statement showing the number of votes recorded shall be amended and the amendment so made along with the result shall be declared. Rule 36 requires that the Returning Officer shall cause the names of the elected candidates to be posted at the Village Chavdi or at the village panchayat office or at such other public place, if any, appointed in that behalf by him and shall report such names immediately to the Collector. 4. The scheme of the counting as elaborated in Rules 32 to 35 clearly indicates that the whole process will have to be completed on the same day and it would be a continuous one. Application for the recount to be given under Rule 35 will have to be given immediately after the statement of the votes and the result on the basis of the said statement is declared by the Returning Officer. While taking the decision on the application for the recount, parties particularly the candidate who is declared elected will have to be heard, if he has to say anything in the matter. Returning Officer has to record the reason for the decision which he would take and the recounting shall thereupon be undertaken as a continuation of the process of the counting. Result will have to be again announced on the basis of the amended statement of the votes secured by the candidates. Rules do not give any power to the Returning Officer to entertain an application for the recount after he has given a certificate of election to the returned candidate and has posted the names of the elected candidates at the Village Chavdi or other place indicated under Rule 36. Once the names are forwarded to the Collector, Returning Officer ceases to hold any domain over the elections. Any further challenge to the election will have to be made only as permissible under section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and not otherwise. 5. In the instant case, we find that the recount was applied after four days after the elections results were declared by the Returning Officer and the results declared were amended and the Collector on 11th November, 1992 declared the names of respondents 3 and 4 having been elected from Ward No. 2 in the elections to Salgaon Village Panchayat. 5. In the instant case, we find that the recount was applied after four days after the elections results were declared by the Returning Officer and the results declared were amended and the Collector on 11th November, 1992 declared the names of respondents 3 and 4 having been elected from Ward No. 2 in the elections to Salgaon Village Panchayat. All these actions were without jurisdiction. We, therefore, quash the same and restore the election result which were declared by the respondent Returning Officer on 7th November, 1992 declaring petitioner No. 1 having been elected to the general seat and petitioner No. 2 having been elected to the seat reserved for woman from Ward No. 2 to the said Village Panchayat. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, we leave parties to bear their own costs. Rule made absolute. *****