Lokmat News Network
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar:
Vote counting for Prabhags 15, 16 and 17 under ERO 2 began smoothly in the morning. However, during the final stage of counting for Prabhag 16 ‘D’, candidates and their representatives noticed that an EVM showed 225 votes recorded on 14 January. This led to chaos inside the counting centre. Candidates submitted written objections, and election officials struggled to provide explanations. The confusion continued for nearly two hours.
What exactly happened?
Counting for the three Prabhags started at 10 am at the government polytechnic. Around 2 pm, during the counting of Prabhag 16 ‘D’, Uddhav Sena candidate Rajendra Danve and his representatives raised an objection after noticing that 225 votes were shown as polled on 14 January in one EVM. Abhay Taksal and other candidates and their representatives present also raised objections and demanded clarification. As a result, the counting process came to a standstill for two hours. Initially, counting staff and officials appeared visibly tense. Election returning officer Nilesh Apar tried to explain the issue, but no one was ready to listen. Eventually,commissioner of police Pravin Pawar and riot control commandos entered the counting hall. This triggered further protests, with Rajendra Danve and others alleging that the police commissioner had been called to pressure them. The police later left the hall, stating it was a routine visit.
‘This is a clock error’
Finally, after election returning officer Nilesh Apar informed the state election commission about the incident, a clarification was received stating that the issue was due to a ‘clock error’, because of which votes cast on 15 January were displayed as having been cast on the 14th. However, candidates and their representatives refused to accept the explanation. Protesting the incident, they walked out of the counting hall. The election results were eventually declared between 4.30 and 4.45 pm.
What officials say
Election returning officer Nilesh Apar said the candidates had misunderstood the situation. “It was a clock error. After voters cast their votes, their signatures are taken, and similarly, representatives’ signatures are obtained while sealing the EVM. These records were verified during the inspection,” he said.