Wanchoo, C. J.—This is an application by Prabhudayal under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ direction or order in connection with the election of Malharna Dungar Panchayat.

2. The applicants case is that the election for the Panchayat at Malharna Dungar was fixed for the 20th of Oct., 1954. Under rule 4 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Election Rules, 1954, the Returning Officer has, at least 7 day? before the date of election, to announce for the information of the inhabitants of the Panchayat Circle by notice and in such other manner as the Chief Panchayat Officer may direct the number and names of wards, if any, the number of Panchas to be elected from each ward and from the entire Panchayat Circle and the date, time and place of election. The applicant submits that the Returning Officer did not comply with rule 4, inasmuch as he issued the notice under rule 4 on the 18th of October, 1954. The applicant raised certain other points which, however, we do not consider it necessary to set out for purposes of this case.

3. The application has been opposed by the opposite parties, and the reply with respect to compliance with rule 4 is this. It is admitted that election was fixed for the 20th of October, at 12 noon, It is said that the Returning Officer fixed the date, time and place of the election by means of a notice on the 11th of October, 1954 and this notice was pasted on a conspicuous place on the 12th of October, 1954. This notice said that election would be held at the Tehsil building in Malharna Danger on the 20th of October, 1954 at 12 noon. It also went on to say that the List of wards would be published later when received by the Returning Officer. It is also admitted that the list of wards and the number of Panchas to be elected from each ward were actually announced by a notice on the 15th of October, 1954.

4. It is obvious from this admission on behalf of the opposite parties that rule 4, was not strictly complied with inasmuch as though the date, time and place of the election were notified seven days before, the list of wards and the number of Panchas to be elected from each ward were not so notified by the time mentioned in rule 4.

5. The first question that arises in these circumstances is whether rule 4, is a mandatory rule which must be obeyed before an election is held, or is merely a directory provision. We are clearly of opinion that it is a mandatory rule for the simple reason that before the notice mentioned in rule 4 is published, the electors must know whether the entire Panchayat Circle will be divided into words or not, and whether the election would take place for all the members of Panchayat treating the entire Panchayat circle as one ward. It is clear from rule 4 that it is not necessary that a Panchayat circle may be divided into wards, for the words "if any" appear after the words "may direct the number and names of wards", and this clearly indicates that, in certain circumstances, the entire Panchayat circle may be one ward for the election of the Panchas. Consequently, the voters of Panchayat circle only come to know, for the first time, by a notice under rule 4, that their Panchayat circle will be divided into a certain number of wards, and a certain number of Panchas will be elected from each ward. The rule also provides that this notice should be given to the electors at least seven days before the date of election. The reason for this is clear inasmuch as the electors must know sometime before they go to vote the number and particulars of the candidates for whom they would be required to vote. It is also necessary that the candidates, who are standing for election, should know whether they have to stand in the entire Panchayat Circle and have to canvass in the wide area, or whether they may stand in a certain ward out of the Panchayat Circle, and have to canvass only in that limited area. The learned Deputy Government Advocate also has not pressed before us that rule 4 is merely a directory

Click Here to Read the rest of this document