1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ is, whether competent authority (SDO) was justified in allowing the election petition filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner under section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam (for short hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam). In other words, the question that arises for consideration is, whether competent authority was justified in holding that petitioner was disqualified for contesting the election or in any event disqualified to get himself elected on the post of Sarpanch because he was holding yet another post of President of one co-operative society. This, in substance, is the question. It arises on following facts which were pleaded by the parties in the election petition and were relied upon for recording the impugned finding against the petitioner. .

2. There is a Gram Panchayat at village Rathana in District Mandsour. Election for the post of Sarpanch was announced by Annexure P-l issued by the returning officer. In terms of the election programme, the election programme became operative from 6.5.1999 when list of electoral was published. Parties were to submit the nomination on 10.5.1999 whereas the election was to be held on 28.1.2000.

3. Petitioner as also the respondent No. 1 contested the election. Petitioner won and respondent No. 1 lost. This led to filing of the election petition under section 122 of the Adhiniyam read with Rules applicable to filing and deciding of the election petition. The ground on which the election of the petitioner was challenged was that petitioner was not eligible and/or to say not qualified to contest the election of Sarpanch because on the date of election and even thereafter he was holding the post of President of cooperative society called Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society. The case of petitioner was that on 6.5.1999 (Annexure P-5) he had tendered his resignation which was accepted by the Society on 3.2.2000 (AnnexureP-6). It is on this basis, the petitioner contended that he was eligible to contest the election as also entitled to retain the post of Sarpanch. The competent authority, however, by impugned order, allowed the election petition filed by the respondent No.1, i.e., defeated candidate and held that petitioner was not eligible/qualified to contest the election of Sarpanch because he had incurred the disqualification contained in section 17 (1)(iii) of the Adhiniyam. It is this order which is impugned in this writ. Notice of the writ was issued to respondents. They are served and represented.

4. Heard Shri S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.K. Sethi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.2.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in the writ and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

6. Section 17 (1) of the Adhiniyam which governs the controversy reads as under:

"17 (1) -- Election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. -- (1) In every Gram Panchayat there shall be a Sarpanch and an Up-Sarpanch. A person who –

(i) is qualified to be elected as panch;

(ii) is not a member of either House of Parliament or member of State Legislative Assembly; and

(iii) is not Chairman or Vice-Chairman of Cooperative Society;

shall be elected as a Sarpanch, subject to provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), by persons whose names are included in the list of voters of the Gram Panchayat area in such manner as may be prescribed." Similarly, rule 21(1) (a) of the M.P. Panchayat (Election Petitions Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules (for short 'Rules') reads as under:

"21. Grounds for declaring election to be void. -- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) if the specified officer is of opinion -- (a) That on the date of his election the returned candidate who was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Act...”

7.