ORAL JUDGMENT:---Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard parties. 2.By the present petition, the petitioner impugns the election to the post of Mayor of respondent No. 2 - Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, held on 20th April 1999. At the said election, respondent No. 7 has been declared elected. 3.The meeting of the aforesaid election was presided over by respondent No. 6 the outgoing Mayor. Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were appointed as scrutineers. After the members had cast their votes, scrutineers scrutinised the votes. At that stage, it appears, respondent No. 7 raised an objection in respect of validity of one vote which was cast in favour of the petitioner. The scrutineers overruled the objection. On account of the votes secured by the respective candidates the result of the election was announced by declaring the petitioner as having been elected. The petitioner was declared to have secured 34 votes as against 33 votes secured by respondent No. 7. At this stage, respondent No. 6 who in her capacity as the outgoing Mayor was presiding over the meeting, declared the vote which had been held to be a valid vote by the scrutineers as invalid. As a consequence, she held that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 had each secured 33 votes. Thereafter respondent No. 6 voted her casting vote in favour of respondent No. 7. As a consequence, respondent No. 6 declared respondent No. 7 as duly elected for the post of Mayor. 4.The controversy between the parties hinges around the vote which was declared as valid by the scrutineers and invalid by respondent No. 6. The said vote, it is contended on behalf of respondent No. 7 contains a mark which has been added to the voting papers for the purpose of identifying the voter who has cast that particular vote. Shri Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, has produced the entire proceedings of the election, including the ballot papers for our perusal. We have perused the ballot paper which was objected to by, the respondent No. 7. In our judgment, the same does not contain any mark of identification as contended on behalf of respondent No. 7. The ballot paper contains a smudge like mark of the stamp which is used for marking the vote in favour of the petitioner. We have perused the ballot paper which was objected to by, the respondent No. 7. In our judgment, the same does not contain any mark of identification as contended on behalf of respondent No. 7. The ballot paper contains a smudge like mark of the stamp which is used for marking the vote in favour of the petitioner. The same appears to be accidentally marked and the same cannot be said to have been intentionally marked for identifying the vote. This is as far as the merits of the votes secured by the petitioner and respondent No. 7 is concerned. 5.Now, we come to validity of the authority of respondent No. 6 to declare the aforesaid vote as invalid vote and to give his casting vote in favour of the respondent No. 7. The elections in question are governed by the Mumbai Provincial Municipal Corporations (Amendment of Proceedings) Rules in Chapter II in the Schedule in their application to the City of Ulhasnagar) Rules 1997. Rule 1(g) provides that every meeting shall be presided over by the Mayor if he is present at the time appointed for holding the same, and if the office of Mayor is vacant or if the Mayor is absent, by the Deputy Mayor, in the absence of the Deputy Mayor, by such one of the Councillors present as may be chosen by the meeting to be Chairman for the occasion. Hence the right of the respondent No. 6 to preside over the meeting is undisputed. Rule 2A-18 provides for the manner of ballot voting. Rule 2A-18(a) provides for the presiding authority to first appoint scrutineers not exceeding three in number. Respondent No. 6 in her capacity of being presiding authority, has appointed respondent Nos. 8 and 9 as the scrutineers. Rules 2A-18(j), (k) and (l) which are relevant for the enquiry at hand provide as follows:- "(j) On the close of time fixed under Clause (f) the Polling Officer shall bring the ballot box to the presiding authority which shall immediately declare that the poll is closed and no ballot paper will be issued or received after such declaration. The presiding authority, after opening the ballot box shall take out the voting papers from the box and after initialling them shall hand over the same to the scrutineers. The presiding authority, after opening the ballot box shall take out the voting papers from the box and after initialling them shall hand over the same to the scrutineers. (k) The scrutineers, after rejecting invalid ballot papers if any, count the votes secured by each candidate and prepare a list showing the names of the candidates and the total number of votes secured by each candidate and hand over such list to the presiding authority. (1) The presiding authority shall read out the names of the candidates in the list and the total number of votes secured by each candidate. The candidate getting the largest number of votes, then the next largest number, and so on, shall be declared by the presiding authority to be appointed according to the number of posts to which appointments are to be made." The aforesaid provisions, in our view, make it clear that the presiding authority respondent No. 6 after opening the ballot boxes is required to take out the ballot papers from the boxes and hand over the same to the scrutineers. It is further clear that after the presiding authority has handed over the ballot papers to the scrutineers, her role, at least for the time being, comes to an end and the work of scrutiny is entrusted solely to the scrutineers. The scrutineers are enjoined with the duty to scrutinise the votes, reject the invalid ballot papers if any, count the votes secured by each candidate and prepare a list showing the names of the candidates and the total number of votes secured by each candidate and hand over such list to the presiding authority. This function is exclusively that of the scrutineers. Respondent No. 6 presiding authority has no role to play in the aforesaid process. It is only after the scrutineers have handed over the list indicating the number of votes secured by each candidate that the presiding authority is authorised to declare the result of the election after reading out the names of the candidates and the total number of votes secured by each of them. 6.Aforesaid view that the respondent No. 6 in his capacity as presiding authority has no role to play in the matter of scrutiny of votes becomes amply clear if one makes a reference to the Rules relating to elections to the Standing Committee. 6.Aforesaid view that the respondent No. 6 in his capacity as presiding authority has no role to play in the matter of scrutiny of votes becomes amply clear if one makes a reference to the Rules relating to elections to the Standing Committee. Rule 2A-33 deals with the counting of votes in respect of election of a member to the Standing Committee which reads thus:- "2A-33. Counting of votes:--- The presiding authority after rejecting any invalid ballot papers, shall with the help of Municipal Secretary, count the votes and the candidate who gets the highest number of votes including the second or casting vote of the pre-siding authority, when given, shall be declared elected....................." The aforesaid rule thus indicates that as far the scrutiny of votes in respect of members of the Standing Committee is concerned, the same has been entrusted to the presiding authority whereas as far as the election to the post of Mayor and Deputy Mayor is concerned, the same is entrusted to the scrutineers and not the presiding authority. In the circumstances, we are constrained to opine that respondent No. 6 has exceeded her power in declaring one vote invalid which was cast in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, she has further erred in giving her casting vote in favour of respondent No. 7 and she has thereafter erred in declaring respondent No. 7 as elected to the post of Mayor. Hence both on merits as also in law, we find that respondent No. 7 could not have been declared elected to the post of Mayor. Since, petitioner has secured more votes than respondent No. 7, it follows that the petitioner is entitled to be declared as Mayor of the respondent No. 2 Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation. 7.Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. At this stage, Shri Oka, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 prays for stay of this order. In our view, having regard to the fact that we have found that the respondent No. 7 was not at all entitled to be declared elected and having further regard to the manner in which the election has been declared in his favour, we do not find it fit to grant relief in his favour. Prayer is accordingly rejected. Certified copy is expedited. Rule made absolute.