P.V. DIXIT, J.

1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 all of 1964.

2. The petitioners in these 14 applications under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seek writs of certiorari for quashing orders of the Supervising Officer of Jaora rejecting their nomination papers for election to the Jaora Municipality from different wards of the municipality. The orders of the Supervising Officer rejecting the nomination papers were upheld in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaora. The petitioners pray for the issue of writs of certiorari for quashing also the decisions in appeal of the Sub-Divisional Officer. They further pray that the Supervising Officer be directed to accept their nomination papers and declare them as having been duly elected from the wards concerned unopposed.

3. The nomination papers of all the petitioners were rejected by the Supervising Officer on a common ground, namely, that each of the petitioners had failed to give in his nomination paper the name of the ward from which he was seeking election; that be only mentioned the number of the ward and that thus there was non-compliance on the petitioners' part with clause (i) of rule 13 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962, (hereinafter called the Rules). The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaora agreed in appeal with the view taken by the Supervising Officer. The Supervising Officer also rejected the nomination papers filed by all other candidates, who sought election from the same wards as the petitioners, albeit on different grounds. After the rejection of the nomination papers of all the petitioners and of the respondent-candidates in each petition, a fresh programme for election of the Councillors from different wards of Jaora Municipality was notified by the Collector, Ratlam. As because of the rejection of all the nomination papers no election from any ward was held and no notification of election as required by section 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities, Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), could be made, the remedy under section 20 of the Act of an election petition for calling into question any election was not available to the petitioners. They have, therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

4. Before dealing with the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of Act and the Rules. Under section 29 of the Act, the State Government is required to divide the Municipality into wards and to define the limits of each such ward, subject to the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Wards) Rules, 1963, framed under the Act. Those rules lay down the mode of dividing a Municipality into wards and the procedure for the same. Rule 4 of the aforesaid Wards Rules of 1963, which is very material here, is as follows:–

"4. Name of ward–Each ward shall be known by the number given to that ward serially. In adition, a name to the ward shall also be given."

Rule 13 of the M.P. Municipalities (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962, so far as it is material here, is in the following terms:–

"13. (1) (i) On or before the date fixed for filing nomination paper of candidates, each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer or seconder, between the hours of 11 O' clock in the noon and 3 O' clock in the afternoon, deliver to the supervising officer a nomination paper completed in Form IV and subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination and by two duly qualified voters of the ward proposer and seconder.

** ** ** ** **

(iv) (a) On presentation of a nomination paper, the supervising officer shall satisfy himself that the names and roll numbers of the candid