( 1 ) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated 22nd November 1964 of the returning Officer, Block Lalbarra, rejecting his nomination paper for election as a panch to the Gram Panchayat from ward No. 4 of village Atri. The petitioner also seeks a direction commanding the Returning Officer to declare him as having been duly elected from the ward unopposed.

( 2 ) THE material facts are that for the election of only one person as a Panch from the ward the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 Makhan filed their nomination papers. The applicant's nomination paper was filed before the Returning Officer on 19th November 1964 and the non-applicant No. 3 Makhan filed his nomination paper on 20th November 1964. The petitioner's name was proposed by one nanho. But that same person also subscribed as proposer the nomination paper relating to the non-applicant No. 3. At the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers the applicant, relying on Rule 24 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Gram panchayats Election and Co. option Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), raised the objection that the respondent No. 3's nomination paper was invalid inasmuch as Nanho. who had subscribed as proposer his own earlier nomination paper, had also subscribed as proposer the nomination paper of makhan. The Returning Officer accepted this objection and hold that the nomination of Makhan was invalid The Returning Officer also rejected the petitioner's nomination paper on the ground that Nanho had subscribed two nomination papers in violation of Rule 24 (2)

( 3 ) THE question that arises for determination in this case is whether any person who is qualified to vote as a voter under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962, and whose name is entered in the voters list can subscribe as proposer more nomination papers than one when there is only one seal to be filled; and whether, if this is not permissible, all the nomination papers subscribed by the person are invalid, The matter turns on Sub-rule (21 of Rule 24 which is as follows:--

"any person who is not subject to any disqualification as a voter under the Act and whose name is entered in the voters list for the ward for which the candidate is nominated may subscribe us proposer. He shall not subscribe as proposer for more than one nomination paper. "

It is clear from this Rule that it prohibits a person from subscribing as proposer for more than one nomination paper, It is not necessary to consider in this case whether this Rule permits a person to subscribe as proposer as many nomination papers as there are vacancies to be filled, or permits him to subscribe as proposer more than one nomination paper in favour of the same candidate. But this much is very clear that where a person has subscribed us proposer the nomination paper of one candidate when there is one seat to be filled he cannot as proposer subscribe any other person's nomination paper. If he does so, both the nomination papers are not invalid. The earlier nomination paper subscribed by him as proposer is valid and the one subscribed by him later as proposer becomes invalid. This is on the reasoning that if a person has the choice of selecting any one person as a candidate for election, then the moment he subscribes as proposer the nomination paper of one person his right to exercise the choice is completely exhausted and he has no further right to sign his name as proposer on any subsequent nomination paper. In the present case, it was not disputed by the learned Government Advocate who appeared for the Returning Officer that the nomination paper of the petitioner was first received on 19th November 1964 and the solitary nomination paper of the opponent Makhan with Nanho as the proposer was received on 20th November 1964. The Returning Officer was therefore, right in rejecting Makhan's nomination paper; but he erred in rejecting the petitioner's nom