Ranwat, J.—This an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India

2. The petitioner is one Anokhmal of village, Choru, in Tehsil Uniara district Tonk, His case is that a village panchayat was established at Choru under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, and the elections of Panchas and Sarpanch of the said Panchayat were held on the 21st of October, 1955, and respondents Nos. 3 to 17 were declared elected. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that notice under Rule 4 of the Panchayat Election Rules of 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) was published by the Returning Officer on the 14th of October, 1955, and a copy thereof was affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat the same day. Copies of the said notice were also circulated in the village constituting the Choru Panchayat through Patwa-ris on the 15th of October, 1955. Thus the case of the petitioner is that the notice under Rule 4 of the Rules was not announced 7 days before the date of election and the proceedings of election are, therefore, challenged to be invalid. The prayer of the petitioner is that the proceedings of election be declared to be invalid and the Chief Panchayat Officer be directed to hold fresh elections of the Panchayat. It has also been stated by the petitioner that he raised an objection in this behalf before the Returning Officer at the time of election, but it was not considered and the proceedings of election were conducted in spite of the objection having been raised by him.

3. No replies have been filed by the opposite parties. The record of election has, however, been placed before this Court by Shri Ram Avtar, Deputy Government Advocate. |

4. The fact that notice of election under Rule 4 was announced on the 14th of October, 1955, and that election was held on the 21st of October, 1955, as stated by the petitioner, is supported by the record of the proceedings of election The only point which deserves consideration is whether a contravention of Rule 4 has taken place in this case.

5. Rule 4 of the Rules is as follows—

"The Returning Officer shall, at least saven days before the date of election, announce for the information 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."

6. Rule 4 is mandatory and we may refer to the decision of this Court in Prabhudayal vs. The Chief Panchayat Officer, Jaipur and 15 others since reported 1957 R.L.W.. 317). The observations in the judgment of that case are as follows:—

"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 do not know whether the entire Panchayat Circle will be divided into wards or not, and whether the election would take place for all the members of the Panchayat treating the entire Panchayat Circle as one ward. It is clear from rule 4 that it is Dot necessary that a Panchayat Circle may be divided into wards, for the words "if any" appear after the words, "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 a Panchayat Circle only come to know, for the first time, by the 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document