ORDER :---We are passing common order in both the petitions as common question is involved.

2. The elections to Gram Panchayat Sintala, Taluqa Mul, District Chandrapur, were to be held as per the election programme announced some-where in the early part of December 1998. The nominations were to be filed on 7-12-1998 followed by its scrutiny and thereafter holding of the election. The elections are to be held on 26-12-1998. Following the scrutiny in both the matters the nomination papers of respective petitioner were rejected on 12-12-1998.

3. So far as the reason for rejection is concerned, the Returning Officer held that the municipal dues relating to water bill charges have not been paid.

4. In both the petitions, it is a common ground of the respective petitioners that the aforesaid finding is baseless because the alleged bills were not served on the petitioners and if served no notice of demand was made. When the matter was circulated before us on 17-12-1998, we issued Notice with a view to enable the respondents to find out whether the petitioners in fact were defaulters in payment of municipal dues and so far as important aspect of notice is concerned, is there no acknowledgment to substantiate the claim of notice having been served.

4-A. Today, the learned A.G.P. Mr. Chawda, appearing for respondent No. 1, has very candidly said that till date no acknowledgment has been found as to the details of the bills and also other record is not yet available, prima facie, therefore, so far as the petition is concerned, the averment made in the petition is made out. Therefore, it would be a ground for admitting the matter and of course, for granting interim relief which would be the prime purpose of filing the petition.

5. However, as it happens in these cases one of the candidate contesting the election, i.e. Ambadas Dukru Chalakh, respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 3964/98, had also filed nomination paper and on account of impugned action of rejection of his nomination paper where there were two contestants, namely Pandurang Vithul Bhurse- the petitioner and said Ambadas respectively, the respondent No. 2 came to be elected unopposed. So far as that petition is concerned, there are no elections necessary and for all purposes the elections have concluded. No doubt a formal notification of the elections having been concluded showing the names of respective elected candidates is yet to be gazetted. So far as respondent No. 2 of that petition is concerned, he has been duly informed by the Returning Officer that he has been elected unopposed.

6. In these backgrounds, if Writ Petition No. 3962/98 is taken into consideration, it being in respect of the same Gram Panchayat where we entertain one petition or other, the important question that is required to be gone is the implication of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Clause (b) thereof is more important. Therefore, the relevant portion is quoted :

"243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters :---

(a) ..........

(b) No election to any panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the legislature of a State."

One could have easily argued, though not so done, that the election would necessarily mean the election in accordance with rules. No doubt, it would include the process which ends with the actual voting. That process would include filing of nomination, scrutiny thereof and acceptance or rejection, as the case may be. If the word election is to be understood to mean the election as per rules, it would automatically imply that scrutiny and acceptance or rejection, as the case may be, shall also be in accordance with the rules.

7. The challenge to the action is that the very ground for rejection is not in accordance with rules because unless it is established before the Returning Officer that the petitioner had the knowledge of dues and was called upon to pay the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document