Judgment :- B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Challenge is to order of respondent 3 Tahasildar, Badnapur cancelling the voting /poll scheduled on 24.10.2010 for division no. 3 of Gram Panchayat, Badnapur during its general elections in 2010 due to death of contestant Shri Chandramani Ramchandra Ragde on 23.10.2010. This has been done under Rule 14-A of the Bombay Gram Panchayat (Election) Rules,1959; hereinafter referred to as 1959 Rules framed under Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, referred as 1958 Act. This Court issued notice on 2.11.2010 and on 6.11.2010, this Court stayed part of order countermanding the poll which affected other two seats in said division viz. open seat & OBC(woman) seat. The election of Sarpancha & Deputy Sarpancha was made subject to outcome of this writ petition & a connected writ petition. On 24.11.2010, the subsequent election programme was stayed. Petition was allowed to be amended on 9.12.2010 to assail proposed holding of elections from ward/division no. 2 from open & OBC (woman) category. On 24.4.2012, this Court opined that petition required expeditious final disposal. Question to be decided is whether respondent 3 Tahasildar was justified in countermanding the entire poll from ward no. 2 or then only poll from SC category needed cancellation thereby permitting the polling for open & OBC (woman) categories to proceed. The facts essential for resolving the controversy are stated by us above and the same are not in dispute. 2. We have heard finally advocate Shri Dhorde with Adv. Kute for petitioner & Senior Adv. Shri Dixit with Adv. Gavare for Respondents 6 to 10. Adv. S.T. Shelke for respondents 2 & 4 and AGP Adv. Chaudhary for respondents 1 & 3 with consent and by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 3. Learned Advocate Shri Dhorde submits that there were three independent elections in ward no. 2 with separate ballot papers and one had no bearing on the other. Hence, only election from SC category needed to be held again & respondent 3 has acted arbitrarily in countermanding the poll for open & OBC (woman) seats. Relying upon Rule 14-A of the 1959 Rules, he submits that said order of Tahasildar is without jurisdiction & unsustainable. As said order is liable to fall, the direction to hold poll for open & OBC (woman) categories in ward no. 2 must be issued. 4. Relying upon Rule 14-A of the 1959 Rules, he submits that said order of Tahasildar is without jurisdiction & unsustainable. As said order is liable to fall, the direction to hold poll for open & OBC (woman) categories in ward no. 2 must be issued. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Dixit contends that entire election from ward no. 2 must be viewed as one and it can not be treated as separate fro each category. Rule 14-A itself mandates commencement of fresh process in such situation & this is already recognized by the respondent 2 State Election Commission in its communication dated 11.11.1997. He draws support from Rule 34 of the 1959 Rules to point out bearing of such death on entire election in ward no. 2. According to him on EVM (electronic voting machine) all three categories appear on one screen, voting is to be done simultaneously & a voter may or may not cast vote for all categories. Therefore instruction no. 15 issued by respondent 2 on 28.3.2007 is relevant and instruction no. 2(2) defining the constituency recognizes entire division or ward as one constituency. Thus, in case of death, entire poll from ward no. 2 has been rightly countermanded. Adv. Dixit points out that period of more than 2 years has already expired & hence, in such situation, even public interest warrants a democratic approach & holding of the entire process afresh. Respective other advocates attempt to elaborate this line of arguments only. They pray for dismissal of writ petition & for vacation of the interim relief. 5. Rule 2 (2) defines “Election” to mean an election held to elect a member to a panchayat. Form of nomination ie Form “A” under Rule 8 is common fro all and when in a ward, reserved seat is available, the person desirous of contesting against it has to state whether he is belonging to such reserved category. Most important provision is Rule 34 of 1959 Rules. Form of nomination ie Form “A” under Rule 8 is common fro all and when in a ward, reserved seat is available, the person desirous of contesting against it has to state whether he is belonging to such reserved category. Most important provision is Rule 34 of 1959 Rules. Relevant provision of Rule 34(2) till year 2002 read :-- “ The Returning Officer shall then declare from among all other candidates, excluding those who have been declared elected to fill the reserved seats, if any, the candidate or candidates who have secured the largest number of votes to be elected to fill the unreserved seats.” In 2002, this sub-rule (2) has been amended and now it reads :-- “The Returning Officer shall then declare the result of unreserved seat or seats from among the candidates who have contested election from unreserved seat and who have secured the largest number of votes to be elected to fill the unreserved seat or seats”. 6. The old rule 34(2) after giving precedence to reserved categories in the matter of counting clubbed defeated reserved category candidates with general or open candidates for finding out who has scored maximum votes and got elected against the general or unreserved seat. Thus a reserved category candidate losing against a reserved seat had a hope to be elected from general category. The amened provision removes this second opportunity to reserved categories as it restricts the zone of consideration on later occasion only to those who had not contested against a reserved seat. The words “from among the candidates who have contested election from unreserved seat” employed therein show that intention is to exclude the reserved category candidates as they contest for reserved seat. The general category candidate can not contest for reserved seat but he fights only for open or unreserved seat. Emphasis in amended provision is on actual contest for unreserved seat or open/general seat. This decision to contest from unreserved seat is taken while filling in the nomination from itself. Candidate filling in nomination for reserved seat can not be said to contest for such unreserved seat. Because of this scheme of amended Rule 34 (2) only, the elimination of successful reserved category candidates at second stage of counting is not required to be provided for therein. Chance to “all other candidates” to succeed in second stage of counting is removed by the amendment. Because of this scheme of amended Rule 34 (2) only, the elimination of successful reserved category candidates at second stage of counting is not required to be provided for therein. Chance to “all other candidates” to succeed in second stage of counting is removed by the amendment. This amendment therefore introduces the category-wise or constituency-wise election. Instructions issued by State Election Commission are also in consonance with this position. The declaration of result of one category has no impact or bearing on the other or general category. Election from each category is therefore independent & complete in itself. 7. The amendment has thus changed the complexion of Rule 34 materially. As per unamended Rule obligation was to declare result for reserved categories first & then excluding these elected successful candidates occupying reserved seat, all others were subjected to further counting to find out candidates elected to fill in open ie unreserved seats. Thus unsuccessful reserved category candidates also had a chance to occupy a general or open seat if they scored more votes than any other open category candidate. Thus, election was one & it was open to voter to cast all his votes in favour of only reserved or unreserved category candidates. In other words, the voting was not constituency wise and voter was not required to exercise his right by casting one vote only each in favour of one of the candidates from open or reserved categories. Declaration of result of reserved categories had thus definite impact on subsequent counting as it determined the zone of consideration for such second counting. But after 2002 amendment, the situation has undergone a sea change. That change is perceived in present election also. Rule 17 as amended in 2006 enables State Election Commission to prescribe form in which ballot paper is to be printed. Admittedly, in present matter three ballot papers were printed in three different colours as per 28.3.2007 instructions ie instruction no. 4(6) of the State Election Commission. Though on screen of the EVM these 3 ballot papers were shown on one screen only, three different colours are employed to distinguish them from each other and this is evident from specimen photograph of said screen supplied by learned senior advocate. 4(6) of the State Election Commission. Though on screen of the EVM these 3 ballot papers were shown on one screen only, three different colours are employed to distinguish them from each other and this is evident from specimen photograph of said screen supplied by learned senior advocate. Even documents of declaration of result after counting annexed with the petition show that on 25.10.2010, the ballot papers were separately looked into & result of the reserved seat had no bearing on unreserved seat. Otherwise from ward no. 5, one Anjana Subhas Sadgure contesting from OBC category would have been declared elected against open seat as she has scored more votes than both open category candidates. But she has lost as she was at serial number 2 in her category. Same holds good for ward no.5 where Shaikh Ayyub Sk. Ahmad would have been declared from open/general seat. Thus, here the election has been actually conducted category wise or constituency wise and has been so accepted by the parties without any objection. 8. Rule 14-A, when viewed in this background, can come into play when the death affects the election from a particular category in multiseat ward or prabhag. Death of candidate before the actual casting of votes ie poll may result in obliterating the contest or then wastage of votes, if ignorant voters vote from him. It also changes political equations. Hence, before the actual polling, the election is countermanded and fresh process has to begin. Said provision is thus in the public interest. Rule 17 as amended in 2006 enables State Election Commission to prescribe form in which ballot paper is to be printed. Accordingly, said Commission issued instructions which are not in dispute and have, in fact been adhered to without any protest by the parties. It consequently follows that if the death has no effect on other elections in a multi-seat ward, the unaffected part thereof must be allowed to continue. Death of SC reserved category candidate Shri Ragde had/has no cascading effect or any other impact on other elections or affected other two seats in said division/ward viz. open seat & OBC(woman) seat. There are no efforts on part of any of the respondents to demonstrate any such effect. Hence. These two elections could have smoothly continued and completed as per law. 9. open seat & OBC(woman) seat. There are no efforts on part of any of the respondents to demonstrate any such effect. Hence. These two elections could have smoothly continued and completed as per law. 9. Order of respondent 3 Tahasildar, Badnapur dated 23.10.2010 cancelling the entire voting /poll scheduled on 24.10.2010 for division no.3 of Gram Panchayat, Badnapur, therefore deserves to be quashed, only to that extent. Respondents are free to have fresh elections only for SC reserved seat in that ward/prabhag as per law. Fresh election programme for said elections dated 16.11.2010 (Ex. N with writ petition) is not according to law and can not be prosecuted further. It is set aside so far as open and OBC (woman) seats are concerned. The cancelled polling for two two seats in said division/ward viz. open seat & OBC(woman) seat, therefore, be continued & completed as if being held on 23.10.2010. Respondents to arrange for its completion & for declaration of result within period of two months from today. In peculiar situation & considering the time lapse, we do not wish to interfere with elections of Sarpnancha & Upsarpancha of the Grampanchayat. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.