Nagendra Rai, J.

1. This appeal filed by the intervenor is directed against the judgment and orderdated 1-7-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ application being CWJC No. 542 of 2001 filed by respondent Bhola Prasad Sao and directing respondent Election Commission, Bihar and its officers to complete the counting and declare the result within one week of the post of Mukhiya of Mahudar Gram Panchayat of Kowakole Block in the district of Nawada.

2. The election to the Gram Panchayats was due since long in this State and due to intervention of the Court, the process of election started. A notification was issued on 7-2-2001 for holding the election to the Panchayats including the Panchayat in question. According to the election programme, 14-2-2001 was the date fixed for filing nomination papers, 15-2-2001 for scrutiny and 16-2-2001 for withdrawals and 11-4-2001 for election. Respondent No. 6 appellant and other candidates filed their nomination papers and after scrutiny 8 nomination papers were found in order. On 21-2-2001, the Returning Officer prepared a list of the contesting candidates in Form 9 and published it in his office and sent its copy through registered post to the District Election Officer. According to Rule 43 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 (for short the Rules), the list contained the names of the contesting candidates with address in alphabetical order in Devnagari Script. The election symbols were also allotted to the candidates in terms of Rule 44 of the Rules. Rule 44 provides for allotment of symbols in prescribed manner to each candidate out of the symbals fixed by the State Election Commission.

3. It is not in dispute that in terms of the said Rules, the Election Commission has fixed symbols to the candidates for the office of Mukhiya and other posts. For the office of Mukhiya, 15 symbols have been prescribed by the Election Commission. It also provided that symbols are to be allotted in seriatim to the candidates, whose names are mentioned in Form 9, which, as stated above, is prepared in alphabetical order in Devnagari Script. Names of eight candidates were mentioned in Form 9 in alphabetical order and the name of the appellant came at serial No. 8 and according to the symbols prescribed by the Election Commission, serial No. 8 is Balti and, accordingly, the said symbol was allotted to the appellant. Respondent No. 6 was allotted symbol according to his position in Form 9. The parties did canvassing during election on the basis of the symbols allotted to them. 11-4-2001 was the date fixed for election. According to the appellant, on that day it transpired that there was mistake in the printing of ballot-papers regarding his case as instead of showing Balti symbol against his name, bungalow was shown, as a result of which the voters were misled and did not cast vote for him. Immediately, he brought this fact to the notice of the Presiding Officer and the Presiding Officer of Booths No. 192, 193 and 194 submitted a report to the concerned officer stating therein that as the symbol of the appellant was wrongly printed in the ballot papers, the voters did not cast their votes. The said reports have been annexed as Annexures 4 series to the memo of appeal. The appellant brought this facts to the notice of the State Election Commissioner by fifing a petition on 16-4-2001 and requested for a fresh poll.

4. On 30-4-2001, the Election Commission had issued general guidelines mentioning, inter alia, that the votes cast on the basis of the ballot papers, which are not printed as Form 9, approved by the Returning Officer, should not be counted. The said guidelines was issued by the Commission taking into consideration that the voting might have place with defective ballot papers, which could not be noticed by the Presiding Officer at the time of poll due to rush of work and due to their inexperience in conducting Panchayat election, which was being held after such a long tim