JUDGMENT: S.A. Bobde, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Admit. By consent of the parties, the Appeal is taken up for hearing at the stage of admission. 2. This Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, by which the Writ Petition filed by respondent nos. 6 and 7 was allowed, holding that the orders passed by the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner declaring the elections of the respondents as Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of village Wadhona-Ramnath in Amravati District is valid in law. The controversy involved in the matter is as under. 2. In the elections of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of village Wadhona Ramnath, there was equality of votes. The Returning Officer, therefore, decided in accordance with Section 33 (4) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1960 and Rule 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 to declare the result of the elections according to a draw of lots. The Returning Officer, therefore, put two chits of the two candidates who had drawn equal number of votes, in one box for the post of Sarpanch and in another box the Returning Officer similarly placed two chits of the names of the two candidates for the post of Upa-Sarpanch. In addition to the chits containing names of two candidates holding equal number of votes, the Returning Officer added 4 blank chits in both the boxes. For drawing the slip, he called a young boy of 12 years and asked him to pick up a chit. In the process the Returning Officer then declared the candidate whose chit was picked up by the young boy, as the elected candidate. For the post of Sarpanch the candidate was Suresh Kisanrao Gaidhane. The same procedure was repeated for the second candidate. On the post of Upa-Sarpanch the person elected was respondent no.7-Krushna Daulat Banarase. What has given rise to the controversy is not any error in declaring the name of the candidates whose chits was picked up by the young boy, but the fact that along with the chits of two candidates, the Returning Officer has put in 4 blank chits. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants before us, the process of putting the blank chits has resulted into prejudice to the contesting candidates, in as much as there is no provision of introducing blank chits in the box while drawing the lot. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants before us, the process of putting the blank chits has resulted into prejudice to the contesting candidates, in as much as there is no provision of introducing blank chits in the box while drawing the lot. 3. The appellants before us, who are the members of the Gram Panchayat filed an election petition before the Additional Collector who upheld their plea. The returning candidates thereafter, preferred appeal against the said order before the Additional Commissioner who maintained the orders of the Additional Collector. Aggrieved thereby the elected candidates whose elections have been set aside preferred Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner, with the result the election of the successful candidates was restored. Aggrieved thereby the appellants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Shri N.A. Gawande, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that no error was committed by the Returning Officer in drawing the lots. He however, submitted that a serious error was committed by the Returning Officer, in introducing four blank chits in the box, which has resulted in prejudice to the appellants. According to the learned Counsel, the prejudice arises from the very fact of introduction of four chits which is an unwarranted procedure and, therefore, the declaration of results by the Returning Officer of the candidates whose name was picked up by the young boy, is illegal. 5. Section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act which provides for procedure for election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch reads as follows. “33. Procedure for election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch:- (1) On the establishment of the Panchayats for the first time under the Act, or on the reconstitution or establishment under Sections 145 and 146, or on the expiry of the term of a Panchayat a meeting shall be called on the date fixed under the subsection [1] of Section 28 by the Collector, for the election of the Sarpanch and the Upa-Sarpanch. In the case where the offices of both the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch become vacant simultaneously, a meeting shall be called on the date fixed by the Collector for the election of the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. (2) The meeting called under subsection [1] shall be presided over by such officer as the Collector may by order appoint in this behalf. In the case where the offices of both the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch become vacant simultaneously, a meeting shall be called on the date fixed by the Collector for the election of the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. (2) The meeting called under subsection [1] shall be presided over by such officer as the Collector may by order appoint in this behalf. The officer aforesaid shall, when presiding over such meeting have the powers and follow the procedure prescribed, but shall not have the right to vote. (3) No business other than the election of the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch shall be transacted at such meeting. (4) If in the election of the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch there is an equality of votes, the result of such election shall be decided by lot draw in the presence of the officer presiding in such manner as he may determine. (5) In the event of a dispute arising as to the validity of the election of a Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch under subsection [1] the officer presiding over such meeting or any member may, within fifteen days from the date of the election, refer the dispute to the Collector for decision. An appeal against the decision of the Collector may, within fifteen days from the date of such decision, be filed before the Commissioner, whose decision shall be final. The Collector or Commissioner shall give his decision as far as possible within sixty days of the receipt of the reference, or as the case may be, appeal.” Further Rule 10 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 to the extent it is relevant reads as follows : “.....the candidate to whom such additional vote shall be deemed to have been given shall be made by lot to be drawn by the Presiding Officer in such manner as he shall determined.” 6. We find from the aforesaid provisions that, what is provided is, where there is equality of votes, the result should be decided by draw of lot, the mode and manner in the Section and the Rules are although silent for the draw of lot, the only objection before us is to the introduction of four blank chits while drawing the lot is, not provided for in the Rules and is, therefore, illegal. We may point out that on the behest of the appellants the actual prejudice is not shown to have occurred to the candidates by the introduction of the four blank chits. Even the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is not that, there is any actual prejudice, but, only that the procedure adopted is not provided for by any Rules and that itself is a prejudice. It is difficult to accept this contention raised on behalf of the appellants. The Rules provide for drawing of lot in case of equality of votes and that has been done. The manner in which the lot are to be drawn is left to be determined by the Returning Officer. The Section and the Rules both says that the lot may be drawn “in such a manner as he may determine”. In the present case, the Section does not provide as to who shall draw the lots, or as to any other details such as size of the chits or size of the box or the number of chits. In the present case, the Returning Officer thought it fit that the chits to be picked up by a young boy of 12 years of age from the box which contained 4 blank chits, in addition to the two chits containing names of the two contesting candidate. It is nobody's case that the existence of the blank chits in the box affected the draw of lots. Indeed the draw of lots could not have been affected, because there were only two chits which have the name of the contesting candidates. It is also not disputed that only one chit was picked up and the name of the candidate on that chit was declared as successful candidate. Shri Gawande, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in fact the first time the young boy picked up a chit and it turned up to be a blank chit and thereafter, he was asked to pick up a chit again and he picked up the chit of successful candidate. Well we do not see the mention of any such picking up of blank chit in the record maintained by the Returning Officer. Well we do not see the mention of any such picking up of blank chit in the record maintained by the Returning Officer. Assuming that the young boy had infact picked up a blank chit, it makes no difference whatsoever, eventually there is no dispute that the candidate who was declared successful was the candidate whose chit was picked up by the young boy. 7. In the circumstances, we find that there is no error of law or fact committed by the learned Single Judge in finding that the appellants have not pointed out how the respondents got any undue advantage, because of the insertion of the four blank chits and the procedure adopted. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. No costs. 8. At this stage, Shri Gawande, the learned Counsel for the appellants prays for an order of status quo for a period of six weeks from today. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, we see no reason to grant such an order, prayer is, therefore, rejected.