( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the election of a Panch for the Gram Panchayat, Barathara.

( 2 ) IT is stated in the petition that the last general election of the Panchayat was held on May 23, 1970. Nathuram (respondent No. 4) and Laxminarayan (respondent No. 5) were candidates from ward No. 2. The said Nathuram was declared elected.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a voter. His contentions are: (1) The voters list was not prepared as required by the rules, framed under Section 5, of the Election and Cooption rules, 1963. (2) The voters list became final when it was published in the gazette dated March 30, 1970, but 8 names were added in the voters list "after 15-70. " In the petition, the significance of that date is not stated but before us it is said that on that date nomination papers were filed and scrutinised. Addition of names after the date of nomination was not permissible under the rules. (3)Nathuram was disqualified inasmuch as he was a defaulter in respect of arrears of taxes of the Panchayat after notice of demand. (4) The Presiding Officer, who presided, was not appointed specifically under Rule 63 of the Panchayat Election and Co-option Rules, 1963, although he was appointed by the Nirwachan Adhikari under Rule 18 of the Rules. (5) Laxminarayan should have been given the Symbol of bullock, but it was not given to him although Nathuram had not demanded that symbol.

( 4 ) THE first question before us is whether this Court would issue a writ under article 226 of the Constitution. All the objections, which the petitioner has taken, can be made grounds for declaring the election void by filing an election petition under Section 357 of the Act. That section reads thus:--

"357. Election petition. (1) No election, or co-option notified under sections 20, 113, 170 and 216 shall be called into question except by a petition presented to the prescribed authority. (2) No such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within fourteen days from the date on which the election or co-option was notified. (3) Such petition shall be enquired into and disposed of according to such summary procedure as may be prescribed. "

Under that section, the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1962, have been framed. Rule 22 reads as follows:--"22. Grounds for declaring election or co-option to be void.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2) if the prescribed authority is of opinion- (a) that on the date of election or co-option a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Act; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or (c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election or co-option in so far as it concerns returned candidate, has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void; or (ii) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder, the prescribed authority shall declare the election or co-option of the returned candidate to be void. " All the grounds taken by the petitioner fall under Rule 22 (1) (d) (iii), quoted above. The petitioner having an appropriate and efficacious remedy, which is provided in emphatic terms, this Court would not interfere by a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution save for compelling reasons in very special circumstances. This was held in thakurprasad v. V. S. Mehta, 1965 MPLJ 480 = (AIR 1965 madh Pra 258 FB ).

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relies on Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh, AIR 1970 SC 340. In that case, it was held by reference to Section 3