V. Chitambaresh, J.

1. This judgment might strike a discordant note in the realm of election law as far as this Court is concerned even though the peculiar facts unfolded in the case warrant the present conclusion. The first respondent Returning Officer published Ext. P1 list of nominations under Rule 9 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' only). The list contained the names of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 who had submitted nominations in the election to Ward No. IX of the Pallickal Grama Panchayat. The nomination papers underwent a scrutiny and the Returning Officer on 15/10/2015 published Ext. P2 list of candidates found legally nominated under Rule 10 of the Rules. Only the names of the petitioner and the third respondent found a place in the list and the nominations put in by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were rejected in the scrutiny. The petitioner was surprised when he came across Ext. P3 order issued by the Returning Officer on 16/10/2015 styled as an erratum to Ext. P2 list of candidates found legally nominated. The erratum order roped in respondent Nos. 4 and 5 also in the poll fray after suo