( 1 ) THESE three petitions raise identical issues against the impugned decisions of the Election Tribunal setting aside the result of the elections to the three wards in question of Bhilvan Gram Panchayat on the ground that the nomination papers of the respondent - candidates were wrongly rejected and directing the elections to the said wards to be held afresh by accepting their nomination papers, and further directing that the election to the office of Upa-Sarpanch of the Panchayat should not be held until the candidates elected from these three wards were able to participate in such election.

( 2 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 11970 of 2003, the returning officer, by his order dated 20th March 2002, informed the respondent No. 1, who had filed his nomination as a candidate for membership of the Village Panchayat from Ward No. 6 that his nomination paper was rejected on 19-3-2002 as he did not state the number of the ward therein. Even in Special Civil Application No. 11972 of 2003 also, similar communication sent on 20th March 2002 was sent by the Returning Officer to the respondent No. 1, stating that upon scrutiny done on 19th March 2002, the ward number stated in the nomination form was incorrect when checked in the voters list and therefore, his nomination form was rejected under Rule 12 of the Gujarat Panchayat Election Rules. In Special Civil Application No. 12419 of 2003, the nomination form of the respondent No. 1 was rejected on the ground that the name of the respondent No. 1 was at Srl. No. 73 in the voters list but the proposer of the respondent No. 1 had not stated the correct serial number and her name was shown at Srl. No. 103.

( 3 ) AGAINST the rejection of their respective nomination forms during scrutiny which was made on 19th March 2002, the concerned candidates who are respondent No. 1 in these three petitions, challenged the communications of the Returning Officer informing them about the rejection of their nomination forms under Rule 12 of the said Rules before the Civil Judge [s. D. ] Patan in Election Petitions Nos. 4/2002, 5/2002 and 6/2002 under Section 31 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993. The learned counsel for both the sides have argued these three petitions by referring to the record of the Special Civil Application No. 11970 of 2003.

( 4 ) THE Election Tribunal held in all the three matters that the Returning Officer had not taken proper care during scrutiny of the nomination forms of these candidates and that if reasonable care was taken in scrutinising the forms, the Returning Officer would not have rejected their forms. It was observed that, from the papers on record, the Returning Officer would have known that the omission of number of the ward or erroneous mention of the serial number of the candidate were only technical lapses on the basis of which the election forms could not have been rejected. Moreover, though all these three candidates were present throughout the day on 19th March 2002 before the Returning Officer, the Returning Officer did not bring the errors to their notice. It was held that the Returning Officer had, thus, committed breach of the guidelines and instructions issued to him which required him to bring such technical errors in the nomination papers to the notice of the concerned candidates. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were accordingly decided by the Election Tribunal against the petitioners. On issues Nos. 3 and 4, the Election Tribunal held that the Election petitions were not barred by limitation, nor were they barred by res judicata and on these issues, the Tribunals decision has not been questioned by the learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions and he has confined his arguments against the findings of the Election Tribunal on the Issues Nos. 1 and 2.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that non-mention of ward number or wrong mention of serial number in the voters list of the candidate concerned was