Naik J.

1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the Returning Officer, Gram Panchayat Elections, Block Lanji, dated 21-11-1964, rejecting his nomination paper for the elections to Gram Panchayat, Paldongri, from Ward No. 5.

2. The reason for rejecting his nomination paper is that, in the opinion of the Returning Officer, as his proposer Kashinath had subscribed two nomination papers, which he was not authorized to do under the Rules, both the nomination papers subscribed by him became invalid on that account.

3. It is not disputed that Kashinath had subscribed two nomination papers as a proposer-one in favour of the petitioner and the other in favour of respondent No. 3 Kamta Prasad. Both these were rejected; but as there was one more nomination paper in favour of respondent No. 3 Kamta Prasad, this other nomination paper, being otherwise found valid, was accepted. As respondent No. 3 was the only validly nominated candidate for the election, he was declared duly elected.

4. It is also not disputed that the nomination paper of the petitioner subscribed by Kashinath as a proposer was filed before the Returning Officer at 12.55 noon; while that in favour of respondent No. 3 which was also sub• scribed by the same proposer Kashinath, was filed at 2.11 p.m.

5. Rule 24 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules, 1963 provides that 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 as proposer. He shall 'not subscribe as proposer for more than one nomination paper'. The question is what this provision that he shall not subscribe as proposer for more than one nomination paper mean.

6. Interpreting an analogous provision in the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayats Rules, 1948 (rule 3 of clause V, Part I), I had held in Ram Krishna Vs. Madhorao M.P. No. 29 of 1956 decided on the 20th July 1956 that where a duly qualified elector may subscribe only one nomination paper, whether as, a proposer or seconder, he, after subscribing one, becomes incompetent to subscribe another there after. Consequently, the nomination paper received first by the Returning Officer is alone valid, 'The' others', received thereafter are all invalid.

7. In Burgovne Vs. Collins (1882) 8 QBD 450, where the provision was that every candidate at a municipal election shall be nominated in writing subscribed by two burgesses as proposor and seconder, and by eight others as assenting to the nomination, and that 'each candidate shall be nominated by a separate nomination paper, but the same burgesses, or any of them, may subscribe as many nomination papers as there are vacancies to be filled, but no more',' it was held that though all were duly filed in time, the first four received first in point of time were valid and that the fifth delivered subsequently was invalid. This was also the view of Kotval J. in Dr. Chhangaram Vs. Dy. Commr. Bhandara and others M.P. No. 397 of 1956, decided on the 6th September 1656 and Pandey, J. in Ramkumar Govindram Vs. Phoolchand Balmukand 1959 JLJ 446.

8. It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the language in the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules and the other Acts and Rules, which were considered in the cases cited above, was materially different and consequently the interpretation accepted as correct in, cases governed by those Acts and Rules need not necessarily be relevant for the interpretation of the Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules, I, however, see no difference in the language of the two Rules. What has been expressed is a negative form in the Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules is expressed in a positive form in the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act and the English Municipal Elections Act. 'He shall not subscr