JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard. 2. Advocate Agrawal invites attention to the proceedings of meeting of respondent No. 4-Gram Panchayat dated 29.8.2010 to submit that demand for holding election to the post of Sarpanch by secret ballot came after majority voted by show of hands in favour of the petitioner. He relied upon the provisions of Rule 10 of The Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 to contend that as per sub-rule (2) thereof holding of election by showing of hands is rule while holding of election by secret ballot is an exception. He further states that when proceedings are correctly recorded, and respondent No. 5 did not dispute it either before the Collector or Additional Commissioner, election of petitioner could not have been set aside. He submits that petitioner completes her term in August, 2015 and this Court has already protected her by interim order passed on 21.2.2012. 3. Learned AGP invites attention to the stand taken by the petitioner in appeal memo before the Additional Commissioner. He submits that narration of sequence by respondent No. 5 in her reference application under Section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before Additional Collector was never in dispute. Returning Officer appears to have held election by show-off hands in the face of a demand by secret ballot. Hence, that election is rightly found vitiated by respondent No. 2 as also by respondent No. 1. 4. The first authority, namely Additional Collector, has applied mind and in the order dated 15.12.2010 found that when there was a demand for holding election to the post of Sarpanch by secret ballot, there could not have been an election by show-of hands. The election of petitioner was, therefore, rightly found vitiated. 5. If chronology argued by Shri Agrawal is accepted, it is apparent that the first adjudication was the first occasion which ought to have prompted the petitioner to press correct chronology. In her reference application, respondent No. 5 did not comment upon that chronology specifically, but her pleadings give an impression that after a demand of secret ballot, voting by showing of hands was conducted. 6. Perusal of proceedings as recorded by the Returning Officer show that total seven members, i.e. all members of Gram Panchayat, were present for election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. Scrutiny was conducted and thereafter nobody withdrew the nomination paper. 6. Perusal of proceedings as recorded by the Returning Officer show that total seven members, i.e. all members of Gram Panchayat, were present for election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. Scrutiny was conducted and thereafter nobody withdrew the nomination paper. Only two candidates were in fray for the post of Sarpanch and as recorded in the proceedings book, respondent No. 3 initially asked the members to cast vote for present petitioner by stating that members in her favour may raise hands. Total four persons including petitioner raised hands. Thereafter, the Presiding Officer has recorded that respondent No. 5 suggested holding of election by secret ballot. But as there was majority in favour of holding election by showing hands, election was held by showing of hands. This chronology mentioned by the Returning Officer, therefore, brings on record a fact that after raising hands, when it became clear that majority was with petitioner, respondent No. 5 requested for secret ballot. That was not shown as the request made by him at the threshold, i.e. before the Returning Officer called upon the parties to vote for petitioner. 7. However, this was not the defence raised by the present petitioner before the Additional Collector. Additional Collector, therefore, has not dealt with chronology. Adverse order of Additional Collector was questioned by the petitioner by filing further appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 8. In said appeal, again petitioner has not commented upon correctness or otherwise of the chronology as appearing in the proceedings book. On the contrary, she has blamed respondent No. 3 for the fiasco. Thus, defence raised by Advocate Agrawal in writ petition before this Court by placing reliance upon chronology, as recorded in proceedings book, appears to be by way of after thought. Though respondent No. 5 no where expressly contends that mention of sequence of events in the proceeding book was not correct, her version about it in that direction has been accepted by lower authorities. Petitioner for the first time is attempting to demonstrate that said narration of sequence is correct and the stand of respondent No. 5 is incorrect. Petitioner has not come with it at the earliest opportunity. She did not raise this contention before the Additional Collector. This contention would have been decisive had it been raised before respondent No. 1. That also has not been done. Petitioner has not come with it at the earliest opportunity. She did not raise this contention before the Additional Collector. This contention would have been decisive had it been raised before respondent No. 1. That also has not been done. It, therefore, appears that petitioner as also respondent No. 5 were in agreement on the text of proceedings and petitioner has also accepted that respondent No. 3 was not justified in conducting the election by show of hands, when there was a demand for holding it by secret ballot. She has never urged before any of the lower authorities that said demand for secret ballot came by way of after thought after seeing the defeat in election, as petitioner had secured four votes. This Court, therefore, finds substance in the contention of learned AGP that defence before this Court is by way of after thought. 9. In this situation, no case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. Petition Dismissed.