Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Anandilal for writ, direction or order under Art. 226 of the Constitution and arises in the following circumstances :

2. Election for the Tehsil Panchayat of Jamwa Ramgarh was to be held on the 31st of May, 1955. Nominations were called up to the 19ch of May, 1955, and the scrutiny of nominations was to take place between the 20th of May and the 22nd of May, 23rd of May was fixed for withdrawal of candidates. The applicant filed a nomination paper for election as Panch of this Panchayat. His case is that the scrutiny did not take place between the 20th and 22nd of May as provided in the programme of the election, and that it was held actually on the 23rd of May. The Returning Officer after the scrutiny accepted the nomination of the applicant, and published a list of nominated candidates according to rule 28 of the Panchayat Election Rules 1954-. The applicants case further is that thereafter he only came to know on the 31st of May, 1955, when the election was taking place, that his name had been removed from the list of candidates nominated for the election, and this came as a great surprise to him. He brought the matter to the notice of the Returning Officer who was, however, not prepared to do anything for him. He then took up the matter to the higher authorities, and eventually came to this Court as he did not get any redress. His main case is that the Returning Officer had no authority to remove his name from the list of nominated candidates once it had been put there by him under rule 28 Other points have also been raised on his behalf, but we need not go into them for present purposes.

3. The application has been opposed by the opposite-parties. According to them, the facts are that the applicants-nomination paper was rejected actually on the 22nd of May, 1955. but by some oversight (which appears . to us very strange) his name was included in the list of duly nominated candidates published under rule 28. The Returning Officer, however, came to know this mistake on that very day, and therefore published the correction by another order dated 23rd of May, 1955, by which the name of the applicant was removed from the list. It is said that the applicant knew of his removal, and that is why he had not even applied for a symbol, and his name was consequently not included in the ballot paper.

4. In his reply it has been contended on behalf of the applicant that assuming that his nomination paper was rejected on the 22nd of May, 1955, as alleged by the opposite parties, the order 11 the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper is illegal inasmuch as the reason given by him for such rejection is not valid reason in law. Therefore, the rejection of the nomina-tion paper was obviously illegal, and consequently the election of Panchas, to the Tehsil Panchayat was vitiated.

5. Two points arise in view of his further plea taken on behalf of the applicant. The first question is whether the applicant has a right to fill an election petition under rule 19 of the Panchayat Election Pules. If he has such a right we would not be disposed to interfere at this stage for he has admittedly not filed any election petition so far. For that we have to look at rule 19 which provides that the validity of the election of any Panch, Sarpanch. or Up-sarpanch may be challenged by a petition presented by a defeated candidate or by any ten duly qualified electors. This rule applies to the Tehsil Panchayat also by virtue of rule 40 subject to necessary changes. The applicant, therefore could only file an election petition if he was defeated candidate.

6. This brings us immediately to the meaning of the words "defeated candidate". There is no doubt that inasmuch as the applicant filed his nomination paper he was a candidate at this election ; but the question is whether he was a defeated candidate. It has been urged by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that in fact he was defeated because he did not come out

Click Here to Read the rest of this document