JUDGMENT : Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the judgment of the trial Court in Election Petition No.4/2014 that was filed by the petitioners under Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). By the said judgment, the aforesaid election petition has been dismissed. 2. Facts found relevant are that in the elections held at Gram Panchayat, Inzhala, from Ward No.2 there were three categories of members were to be elected. These categories were reserved for Scheduled Caste (woman), General Category and Ladies (General Category). The petitioners contested the aforesaid elections from Ward No.2 and on declaration of results, they were held to have been defeated. Being aggrieved they filed an election petition under Section 15 of the said Act. In the said election petition it was pleaded that as the names of the contesting candidates in the electronic voting machine were shown in different categories than the categories from which they had contested the elections, the petitioners did not get the votes that they were entitled to in view of the confusion in the categories of candidates. Due to this, they lost the elections. It was pleaded that the sequence of the list of candidates as mentioned in the electronic voting machine was required to be as per the ballet paper that was affixed at the voting centre. This not having been done had vitiated the elections. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of the Returning Officer it was submitted that on account of inadvertence and oversight the votes received by the candidates contesting from the category of Scheduled Caste (Woman) were shown against the names of the candidates of the General Category and vise versa. It was denied that this mistake was committed deliberately. 4. Before the trial Court the petitioners examined seven witnesses. No evidence was led by the respondents. The trial Court recorded a finding that it was admitted by the Returning Officer that there was a mistake committed in Annexure-25 but the same was caused inadvertently and without any ulterior motive. By relying upon the provisions of Section 15(7) of the said Act, it was held that merely on the ground of irregularity the election was not liable to be set aside. This judgment has been challenged in the present writ petition. By relying upon the provisions of Section 15(7) of the said Act, it was held that merely on the ground of irregularity the election was not liable to be set aside. This judgment has been challenged in the present writ petition. 5. Shri H. N. Potbhare, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the sequence of candidates as shown in the electronic voting machine was different from the sequence as shown in the model ballot paper. This fact was admitted in the written statement filed by the Returning Officer. He therefore submitted that in view of this mistake, the petitioners got lessor votes resulting in their losing the elections. According to him, the trial Court was not justified in observing that as there was no evidence of any corrupt practice, the elections could not be set aside. 6. Shri D. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, 6, and 8 to 10 and Shri A. Kadukar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment. It was urged that the trial Court rightly found that the requirements of Section 15(7) of the said Act had not been satisfied. It was further submitted that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the alleged irregularity was corruptly caused. 7. I have given due consideration to the submissions urged on behalf of the parties. The provisions of Section 15(7) of the said Act have material bearing on the issue in hand. The said provision reads thus : Section 15(7) If the validity of any election is brought in question only on the ground of an error made by the officer charged with carrying out the rules made in this behalf under Section 176 read with subsection (2) of Section 10 and Section 11, or of an irregularity or informality not corruptly caused, the Judge shall not set aside the election. Thus, the election of a returned candidate is not liable to be set aside merely on the ground of an error made by the officer concerned while conducting elections in the manner prescribed by the Rules or in the case of an irregularity or informality unless the same is corruptly caused. 8. Thus, the election of a returned candidate is not liable to be set aside merely on the ground of an error made by the officer concerned while conducting elections in the manner prescribed by the Rules or in the case of an irregularity or informality unless the same is corruptly caused. 8. The expression “corruptly caused” has not been defined in the said Act but the same has material bearing on the prayer for challenging the validity of an election on the ground of any irregularity or informality. In the present context it would mean an act done with a view to get an advantage inconsistent with the rights of others. It is only if it is demonstrated that such error or irregularity or informality has been corruptly caused that the election is liable to be set aside. 9. In the present case the elections have been challenged only on the ground that the list of contesting candidates was prepared in an incorrect sequence and shown in the electronic voting machine. The material allegation in the election petition was that the Returning Officer was grossly negligent while carrying out his duties as such. However, there is no pleading nor any evidence led by the petitioners that this irregularity or informality had been corruptly caused. Infact, it was not their case that the Returning Officer has committed such error in a deliberate manner to suit the interests of the returned candidates. It is not the case set up that the alleged negligence was motivated and at the instance of the returned candidates. Thus, the provisions of Section 15(7) of the said Act would preclude the setting aside of such election merely on the ground that the Returning Officer committed an error while showing the names of the contesting candidates or in the absence of such irregularity or informality being caused corruptly. 10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find that the trial Court committed any error in refusing to set aside the election of the returned candidates only on the ground that there was an inadvertent error in showing the names of the contesting candidates in a different sequence in the electronic voting machine. In view of aforesaid there is no jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.