( 1 ) BY means of filing this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to set aside order dated December 31, 1997 passed by respondent No. 1 by which nomination paper presented by the petitioner for contesting election as a member of Vadsala Gram Panchayat, is rejected on the ground that name of the petitioner does not appear at serial No. 533 in the electoral roll prepared on August 4, 1997.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a resident of village Vadsala. The State Election Commission issued notification in Official Gazette for holding election of Sarpanch and members to Vadsala Gram Panchayat. On December 12, 1997 a public notice was published by the Returning Officer, i. e. , respondent No. 1 of the intended election in Form 3 inviting nominations of candidates for said election. In pursuance of public notice, the petitioner presented nomination paper on December 29, 1997 to contest election as a member of said Panchayat. The respondent No. 1 rejected nomination paper of the petitioner on December 31, 1997 on the ground that name of the petitioner did not appear at serial No. 533 in the list of voters prepared on August 4, 1997. The said decision is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-B to the petition. The petitioner has averred in the petition that whole basis of the impugned decision is factually incorrect, inasmuch as the petitioners name appears at serial No. 533 in the list of voters prepared on September 15, 1997 as well as at serial No. 45 in the list of voters prepared on August 4, 1997 and, therefore, the impugned decision is liable to be set aside. What is claimed in the petition is that before rejecting nomination paper presented by the petitioner, no inquiry worth the name as contemplated by Rule 15 (2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Election Rules, 1994 was made by the Returning Officer and as the impugned decision is contrary to the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 as well as election rules framed thereunder, the same is liable to be set aside. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has filed present petition and claimed relief to which reference is made earlier.

( 3 ) THE petition was placed for admission hearing before Court (Coram : m. S. Shah, J.) on January 5, 1998 and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, notice was issued making it returnable on January 8, 1998. On January 8, 1998, following order was passed by the Court :-"mr. M. M. Patel, learned A. G. P. states that the name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No. 533 in the list dated 15-9-1997. However, since the Returning Officer is not present in the Court today, he will seek instruction for making appropriate statement on 12-1- 1998. S. O. to 12-1-1998. "

( 4 ) MR. P. M. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 533 in the latest list of voters which was prepared on September 15, 1997 as well as at serial No. 45 in the list of voters which was prepared on August 4, 1997 and, therefore, the impugned decision being factually incorrect, the petition should be entertained. It was pleaded that before passing the impugned order, no summary inquiry as contemplated by the Gujarat panchayats Election Rules, 1994 was made by the Returning Officer and, therefore, the relief claimed in the petition should be granted. What was highlighted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that election petition, if filed by the petitioner, is bound to be allowed and, therefore, the Court should not refuse to entertain the petition on the ground that alternative effective remedy of filing election petition is available to the petitioner. It was also contended that the reason for which nomination paper presented by the petitioner is rejected, is not substantial at all and is technical one in nature and, therefore, the impugned decision deserves to be set aside. In supp