The requirement of reading and writing Hindi under Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 only means bare literacy and not a high degree of proficiency.

1. This is a writ petition in an election matter under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. The petitioner, Dhanna, is a villager and was elected as Sarpanch of the village panchayat in the year 1978. He functioned as Sarpanch of the village Panchayat, Gangyasar till the next election which took place in December, 1981.

2. On 14th December, 1981, the petitioner was again elected for the same post of Sarpanch. The non-petitioner Ram Niwas, filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner on the various grounds. One of the grounds which ultimately weighed with the election Tribunal and which was accepted, was that he is not qualified to become Sarpanch because he is not able to read and write Hindi as required by Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Issue no. 1 which is relevant for the purpose of writ petition reads as under :

D;k izR;k{kh x.k la[;k 1 o 2 vui<+ gS tks fgUnh iM+uk fy[kuk ugh tkurs gSa] blfy;s ljiap in dk pquko yM+us ds vk;ksX; gS\
Both the parties examined evidence in support of their respective contentions on issue no. 1. Ramniwas examined himself, Ratanaram as PW3, Rameshwar PW4. The present petitioner Dhanna examined himself in defence as DW 1. On 13th May, 1982. Dhanna Ram was required to read passage No. 2 and No. 12 from the written statement. During the cross examination, the petitioner was made to write the Hindi expression by dictation of the learned counsel for the respondent. The sentence which was dictated was that. : vklw flag 'ks[kkor dks uksfVl fn;k tkosA This was written by the petitioner as under.

vklw flag 'ks[kkor dks uksfVl fn;k tkosA
The learned Munsif Magistrate after bearing the arguments came to the conclusion that the petitioner, Dhanna, cannot read and write Hindi.

3. Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the finding. The substance of the submission is that on the test held by the Election Tribunal in which the petitioner was made to write and read Hindi, the petitioner depicted his ability to read and write Hindi very well arid therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal is based firstly on misconception and misinterpretation of the relevant provisions of Section 13(l) of the Act and secondly on wrong and erroneous interpretation of the knowledge of reading and writing depicted by Dhanna. Mr. Dhankhar placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Begaram v. The Collector, Sikar (1961 RLW 560) , in which this Court observed as under :

"Sec. 13(1) of the Act only prescribes bare literacy in Hindi. Inability to red difficult passage fluently and to understand it would not show that the petitioner is not able to read Hindi within the meaning of the Act. In the existing state of literacy in Rajasthan it could not have been the intention of the framers of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act to prescribe such a high degree of literacy. If official publications are not issued in very simple language the standard of proficiency needed for understanding such literature cannot be imported in interpreting the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act. (Para 16)

"Hindi" as used in section 13 of the Act does not mean literary Hindi only but includes the various dialects spoken in different parts of Rajasthan. These dialects are all fortes of Hindi. If a person can read and write one of the local dialects he would be duly qualified to be elected as a Sarpanch or Upsarpanch even though be may not be conversant with literary Hindi or Hindi used in Government publications. (Para 16)"

4. Shri M.R. Calla on the contrary has submitted that the finding of the Tribunal is a finding of fact and this court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. howsoever erroneous it may be It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to fulfil the requirement of reading and writing Hindi as required tinder Section 13 of the Act.

5. Before I proceed to examine the question whether I can interfere in w