- (1.) The point for decision in these two cases under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the Appellate Authority under Rule 13 of the West Bengal Panchayat Rules, 1958, has to act in a quasi-judicial capacity, in disposing of the appeal and, if so, the petitioner in the two cases are entitled to the relief claimed.
(2.) The petitioners are voters for election to the Aanchal Panchayat of two areas respectively, namely, Bakra and Salap Anchal Panchyat. The nomination papers submitted by the petitioners under Rule 10(1) of the said Rules, were however, defective and were, accordingly, rejected by the Returning Officer (O.P. No.2), contending that the defect in question was not of a 'character within the meaning of Rule 10(3), proviso. The petitioners took an appeal to the District Panchayat Officer (O.P. No.3) under the provisions of Rule 13, on the ground that their names were wrongly omitted from the list. The provisions of Rule 13 may profitably be reproduced at once : "If any person who has filed a nomination paper under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 finds that his name is not included in the list of candidates published under sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 by the Returning Officer or if any person who filed a nomination paper disputes the right of any other candidate to be on such list, such person may appeal to the District Panchayat Officer in writing not less than 26 days before the election day. The District Panchayat Officer shall forward a copy of his order passed on appeal to Returning Officer so as to reach him not less than 16 days before the election day, and the Returning Officer when so directed by the District Panchayat Officer shall, on receipt of the order, amend the list, note upon it the date of such amendment and forthwith publish at the office of the Gram Panchayat or Anchal Panchayat, if any, or at some other conspicuous places the amendments made in the list."
(3.) The petitioners' grievance is that the Appellate Authority rejected their appeal without hearing the petitioners and even without issuing a notice of any hearing to them. The opposite parties do not say that O.P. No.3 did issue such notice but contend that he was not required to do any such thing under the provisions of Rule 13.;