The rule-making power conferred on the State Government under Section 89(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, is wide enough to include the power to frame rules for the decision of election disputes and the constitution of election tribunals.

WANCHOO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by Mangilal and others under Article 226 of the constitution for a writ of certiorari against the order of the Collector, Bhilwara, in a panchayat election matter.

( 2 ) THE case of the fourteen applicants is that twelve out of them were elected to the Gram Panchayat Hamirgarh on 2-10-1955. They were all members of the Jan sangh Party and the Congress Party was defeated in the elections. Consequently, opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11, who were members of the Congress Party, filed an election petition before the Collector under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat election Rules, 1954 (hereinafter called the Rules ). The enquiry into the petition was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter the Collector set asids the election of the twelve applicants under R. 20. Consequently, the applicants have come up to this Court and their main contentions are these:

(1) That Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules providing for decision of elections are ultra vires, as not being within, the rule making power of the government. (2) That the election petition was premature inasmuch as no notification was made under Section 14 or Rule 18 (c) even till the application was decided by the Collector. (3) That the Collector committed a mistake of law apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as he set aside the election on a ground other than those mentioned in Rule 20.

( 3 ) THE application has been opposed by the ten opposite parties who had filed the petition. In addition, we gave notice to the learned Government Advocate as the validity of Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules was being challenged and have heard the learned Deputy Government Advocate on behalf of the State. We shall now take the points raised by the applicants one by one.

( 4 ) THE contention on behalf of the applicants is that Rules 19 and 20 purport to have been framed under the rule-making power of the Government provided in section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (Act No. XXI of 1953) (hereinafter called the Act ). But there is no provision in Section 89 for framing rules relating to etection disputes and constitution of election tribunals. It is also urged that all that the Legislature intended in this regard is provided in section 17 of the Act and there was, therefore, no power in the State Government to frame rules relating to election disputes beyond what is contained in Section 17 of the Act. Finally it was urged that if there was any election dispute, the parties could take recourse to the ordinary civil court under Section 9 of the Civil procedure Code.

( 5 ) SECTION 89 of the Act is in two parts. Sub-sections (1) gives general power to the State Government to frame rules and is in these words:

"the State Government may by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette, make rules, consistent with this Act, to carry out the purposes thereof. " sub-sections (2) then lays down the various heads under which rules may be framed and begins with these words: "in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may provide for. . . . . . . . . . . . ,. "

There is no specific provision in Sub-sections (2) for decision of election disputes and constitution of election tribunals. The only clause which deals with elections is clause (xxxviii) which is in these terms: "the regulation of the election or nomination of the Sarpanch, and panchas of Panchayats and Tehsil Panchayats. " we are satisfied that Clause (xxxviii) has nothing to do with the decision of election disputes. It only talks of the regulation of the election and the election is over when the result is declared. Therefore Clause (xxxviii) only refers to all matters up to the time the election is over. Election disputes and election tribunals come there-after and, therefore, Clause (xxxviii) cannot be pressed into use to justify the framing of Rules 19 and 20.

( 6 ) IT is, however, contended by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that sub-secti