( 1 ) THESE five petitions have been referred to the Full Bench for deciding the controversial question whether it is proper that the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in election matters, at intermediate stages i. e. , to interfere with individual orders, passed during the process of election and thus impede that process, or, should it decline to exercise that power and leave the parties to their remedy of an election petition to be presented after the election is over.

( 2 ) THE facts are that the petitioners had filed their nomination papers for being chosen as Panchas at the recent Gram-Pan-chayat elections. Their nomination papers were rejected during scrutiny on the objection that they had not paid all taxes due against them to the Gram-Panchayats for the last financial year and were, therefore, disqualified for being a Panch, Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch of a gram-Panchayat under Section 17 (1) (i) of the Act. These petitions are filed for issuing writs in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders of the Returning officers on the ground of improper rejection of nomination papers and for issuing writs in the nature or mandamus for directing the Returning Officers to include their names in the lists of valid nominations and thereafter to proceed with the elections.

( 3 ) THE Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962 (No. 7 of 1962) provides, inter alia, by Section 10 for the establishment of Gram-Panchayats in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Section 11 directs that every Gram-Panchayat shall consist of elected and co-opted members. The manner of election and co-option of panchas is provided for by Section 12. Under Section 12 (1), the election and cooption of Panchas shall be in accordance with the Rules. For this purpose, the state Government has made the Madhya Pradesh Gram-Panchayat Election and co-option Rules, 1963. The Rules provide a complete process for election and cooption of Panchas. For the sake of convenience, the relevant rules in regard to nomination of candidates may be set out. Rule 27 (1) enjoins the Returning Officer to fix a date for scrutiny. Under Rule 27 (2), he shall, on the date of scrutiny, decide all objections which may be raised to any nomination. Under the proviso to Rule 27 (5), the Returning Officer is required to give to the candidate against whose candidature an objection is raised, an opportunity to rebut the objection, if any, and for this purpose, he has to allow him time till the next date. The Returning officer, may, either on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the grounds mentioned in Rule 27 (2 ). One or the grounds for rejection is that the candidate is disqualified from being chosen to fill the seat by or under the Act. Rule 27 (6) requires the Returning Officer to endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting the same, and if the nomination paper is rejected he is required to record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejection and it attaches a finality to the order passed by the Returning officer. Under Rule 27 (8), he is required to prepare and publish a list of candidates whose nominations have been accepted. Unlike other enactments, there is no appeal provided against improper acceptance or rejection of nomination papers. That, however, is a ground for an election petition.

( 4 ) SECTION 357 (1) of the Act, with which we are concerned, reads as follows:-

"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. "

The word 'election' must in the context in which it appears be interpreted to mean the entire process of election culminating in a candidate being declared elected and includdes the rejection of a nomination paper with which the process of election begins. Sectio