MODI, J. - (1.) THESE three writ applications have been referred to us by a learned Single Judge and raise an interesting question as to the interpretation of R. 14 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960, hereinafter called the Rules, made under sec. 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (Act No. XXX of 1953), hereinafter called the Act of 1953. As the question involved is the same in all these applications, we propose to dispose of them by a single judgment.
(2.) BY Writ Application No. 5 of 1961 of the election held for the Rhoknar Panchayat, on 26th December, 1960, has been questioned; whereas by Writ Application No. 6 of 1961 the election called in question pertains to Panchayat, Jusari, and by Writ Application No. 37 of 1961 the election questioned pertains to Panchayat, Kinsaria both these last mentioned elections having been held on the 25th cum 26th Dec, 1961 respectively. The grounds on which these elections are challenged are two in number. The first ground is that according to R. 14 of the Rules the notice calling upon the electors in these electoral areas was not published in the State Gazette but what was done was that a notice was issued by the Collector in each case and it was published in each of the wards of the electoral areas by being pasted in conspicuous places therein. The contention of learned counsel is that the requirement of R. 14 is that the notice of election should have been published in the Official Gazette, and, therefore, this rule was breached when no such notice was published in the manner required. Learned counsel in this connection laid great stress on the meaning of the word "notification" and contended that the meaning of this word, according to Cl. (48) of sec. 32 of Rajasthan Gen. Clauses Act, is that the notification must have been published in the Gazette by competent authority. The second contention is that the various notices calling upon the wards in the panchayats concerned to go to poll show that they were not signed by the Collector and, therefore, these notices were not valid within the meaning of R. 14. These writ applications have been opposed, before us, on behalf of some of the Punchas who have been declared successful at the elections, as also by the State. The first and foremost question for determination is, as to the precise meaning of the word "notification" as used in R. 14 of the Rules, or putting it in slightly different language, where the word "notification" carries the meaning proposed to be assigned to it by learned counsel for the petitioners as defined in the General Clauses Act. The word "notification" has been defined in the aforesaid Act as follows: - "32 (48) "notification" or 'public notification' shall mean a notification published authority in the Gazatte. " It is not disputed before us that the various notices, issued under rule 14, in the cases before us, calling upon the wards in these areas to go to the polls, were not published in the Official Gazette. The contention of learned counsel then is that this provision is mandatory. Furnishing as it did the very foundation for the holding of the election it is forcefully submitted that the consequence of the failure to comply with this requirement was that the entire election stood vitiated. I We may state at once that if that is the correct meaning to put on the word notification, as used in R. 14, there would be no alternative before us but to quash the election. Rule 14 reads as follows: - "14. Notification of election - (1) As often as a general election of panchas in a panchayat circle becomes necessary, or is required by the provisions of the Act, to be held for the constitution or reconstitution of a panchayat, the Collector shall by notification, - (i) call upon all wards in the panchayat circle to elect in the case of single-member wards, one panch each and in the case of a multimember ward, as many panchas as may have been fixed therefor under sec. 5, within the time specified in the notification, and (ii) appoint hereby - (a) a day on or before which and the hour thereof by which nomination papers are to be presented, (b) a day, not later than the day next succeeding the date fixed for the presentation of nomination papers, and hour thereof, on and at which the scrutiny of such nomination papers shall be made, (c) a day, not later than the day next succeeding the day fixed for the scrutiny of nomination papers, on or before which, and the hour thereof by which, nominations may be withdrawn, (d) a day on which a poll shall, if necessary, be taken, and (e) the hours within which such poll be taken. (2) The Collector shall by the same or a separate notification, appoint a person, by name or by virtue of his office, to act as Returning Officer for each panchayat circle. " Having given our careful and anxious consideration to this question, we have, however, come to the conclusion that the word "notification", as used in this rule, has been employed in its general or nontechnical sense and does not bear the somewhat narrow connotation, which has been assigned to it under the General Clauses Act. We have arrived at this conclusion by a fairly critical and close scrutiny of some of the other provisions contained in the Rules, as also in the Act of 1953, under which R. 14, among other rules, has been enacted. We propose to illustrate our meaning by specific reference to some of the provisions of the said Act in which the word "notification" has been used. Sec. 3 lays down that the State Government may, "by notification in the Official Gazette", establish a Panchayat for a village or a part of a village or a group of villages not included within the limits of a Municipality. It further lays down that the State Government may, by like notification, establish a Panchayat for the whole or a part of any area included within the limits of a municipality, or include any such area or part in any Panchayat circle. Now, if the legislature had intended to use the word "notification" in the narrow sense, as defined in the General Clauses Act, then we have no doubt that the words "in the Official Gazette" following after "notification" were entirely redundant. The next important section in this connection is 7. That section provides that the term of the panchayat shall normally be a period of three years computed from the date of its first meet-ing; provided that it would be open to the State Government to extend the said term from time to time by a period not exceeding one year in the aggregate by a "notification in the Official Gazette. "it seems clear to us that here again the word notification has been used in its popular sense. Sec. 14 carries the heading, "notification of election or appointment". It lays down that every election or appointment of a Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch and a Panch shall be "notified in the Official Gazette" in accordance with rules made under this Act. The next section, to which we may refer in this connection, is sec. 64. Sub-sec. (4) of this section is in these terms: - "the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette require any Panchayat to impose, subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2), any of the taxes specified in Sub-sec. (1) from such date and at such rates as may be specified in the notification. " Sub-sec. (5) then proceeds to enact that while any notification under sub-sec. (4) is in force, the Panchayat shall proceed to impose the tax or taxes therein specified as if a resolution of the Panchayat had been passed for the imposition thereof, and it shall not be lawful for it to abandon, or abolish any tax so imposed. Yet another section, where the expression 'notifi-cat on' has been used, is sec. 70. It provides that the State Government may, by 'notification in the Official Gazette', delegate all or any of its powers under this Act to any officer or authority subordinate to it, and all or any of the powers of the officer-in-charge of Pancha-yats under this Act to any other officer or authority. Then, sec. 86 provides that the State Government may at any time, after giving the prescribed notice, as also by 'a notification in the Official Gazette' include any area in a panchayat circle, or exclude any area from it, or transfer any area from one circle to another. The last section which may be referred to in this connection is sec. 89, which gives power to the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act. This also provides that the Govt. may make such rules by "notification in the Official Gazette", these being of course consistent with the Act. We may also take the opportunity of inviting attention to sec. 4 of the Raj. Panchayat (Second Amendment) Act, 1958 (Act No. 40 of 1958) by which sec. 87 of the principal Act was re-numbered as sub-sec. (1) thereof and a new sub-sec. (2) was inserted therein as follows : - "the State Government, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazatte, change the name of any such Panchayat. " It clearly seems to us that if the legislature had intended to use the word notification in the sense in which the word has been defined under the General Clauses Act, there should have been no necessity of qualifying it by adding the words "in the Official Gazette" after "notification". We next turn to some of the rules wherein R. 44 provides that the names of panchas elected or appointed under R. 43 shall be forthwith notified by the Collector of the District in the Official Gazette of the State. It is not without some significance that this rule has a marginal heading, 'notification of names of panchas". The next rule which may usefully be referred to in this connection is R. 50. The marginal heading thereof is, "notification for co-option". This lays down that where the newly elected Sarpanch finds that the co-option of a panch or panchas therefor is necessary, he shall forthwith call upon the panchas who have been elected to co-opt the requisite number of such panchas. The next rule to which we wish to refer is R. 54. It carries the marginal heading ''publication of the names of co-opted members". Sub-rule (5) of this rule provides that the Collector shall immediately cause to be published in the Official Gazette the name and the address of every panch co-opted or appointed under sec. 9 in accordance with these Rules. The last provision in this connection which may be referred to is cl. (ii) of sub-rule (1) of rule 64 which provides that the names of the retiring members of a Nyaya Panchayat shall be notified by the Collector in the Official Gazette. It was also faintly argued before us that the Rajasthan General Clauses Act came to be enacted, for the first time, in 1955, and, therefore, the legislature had not before it the definition of "notification" as given therein when it enacted the Act of 1953 and, therefore, it had no other alternative but to use the expressions "notify in the Rajasthan Gazette" or "by a notification in the Rajasthan Gazette", or the like, wherever the intention was that publication through the Rajasthan or the Official Gazette was necessary. We are of opinion that this argument is devoid of merit. Firstly, because we find that many a provision pertaining to this type of publication in the Act under consideration came in for specific amendment after 1955, that is, after the Rajasthan General Clauses Act had come into operation, and yet the qualifying phrase as to the mode of publication of such 'notification' appear to us to have been deliberately retained. To illustrate our meaning we wish to point out that the phrase 'notification in the Rajasthan Gazette' occurring in sec. 3 was altered to read as 'by notification in the Official Gazette' by sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Laws (Extension) Act, 1957 (Act No. 27 of 1957 ). It is significant that the only change made was that the phrase 'rajasthan Gazette' was replaced by the phrase 'official Gazette'. It is unnecessary to multiply examples. The point to note is that if the legislature had contemplated to use the expression 'notification' in the restricted sense in which it has been defined in the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, then we should have certainly expected that when it amended sec. 3, as stated above, it should have deleted the words 'in the Rajasthan Gazette' qualifying 'notification' as entirely unnecessary, the more so as this amendment came to be made after the Raj. General Clauses Act had come into force in 1955. Again, in this connection we wish to invite attention to the Rajasthan Panchayat (Second Amendment) Act, 1958, by sec. 4 whereof a new sub-sec. (2) was inserted in sec. 87 of the Principal Act, and by this new provision it was provided that the State Government, from time to time, may change the name of any such Panchayat by notification in the Official Gazette (the underlining is ours ). The Rajasthan General Clauses Act was undoubtedly in force at that time, and that, notwithstanding, legislature chose to use the comprehensive expression, namely, "by notification in the Official Gazette" and was not content to merely use the word notification. This in our opinion, can lead us to one and only one conclusion that the Legislature has not used the word 'notification' in the Act of 1953 in the strict sense in which it has been defined under the General Clauses Act, but has used it in its general or non-technical sense. From the survey we have made of the use of the word 'notification in the various sections and the rules, to which we have specifically referred above, we have no hesitation in saying that the conclusion is strongly borne in upon us that the Legislature as well as the Government, which is the rule making authority under the Act, has used the word notification in its general or popular sense of making something known to those concerned rather than in the narrow and technical sense in which the word has been defined under the General Glauses Act. We should also like to mention in this connection that the definitions given in sec. 32 of the General Clauses Act itself are subject to an important qualification which is specified in the section itself, namely, that the expression defined by that" section will carry the meanings assigned to them in the section unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context or unless the contrary intention appears. We are definitely of the opinion that, having regard to what we have discussed above, the intention of the Legislature in using the word 'notification' in the Act, or, for that matter, of the Government which is the rule making authority in making the rules under the Act, does indicate a clearly contrary intention within the meaning of sec. 32 and, therefore, we hold that the definition given in sec. 32 of the expression in question would not he a sufficient justification for us to assign the meaning to it which it would bear according to that definition, and that this word has been used in R. 14 which we are called upon to interpret, in its general or popular sense. In other words, it would be sufficient compliance with the real requirements of this rule if the notice calling upon a particular constituency to go to poll is mads known to the voters concerned by other appropriate methods of publication of course by competent authority and not necessarily by publication in the Official Gazette. We hold accordingly. If this is the correct interpretation to put on the word 'notification as used in R. 14 as we think it is, then we cannot have any warrant for quashing the elections held in the case of these panchayats, on the score on which we are asked to do so on behalf of the petitioners. We next address ourselves to the contention that the notice of election in the case of the Panchayats in question were not signed by the Collector within the meaning of R. 14 and, therefore, they were bad, and on that ground also the elections must be vitiated. The answer to this contention is two-folds: In the first place, we have the affidavit of the Collector that he had signed the notices of election himself which were in his office, and that for giving them wide publicity, the printed copies of the notification bearing the seal, the name and the designation of the Collector were affixed in each ward. It appears that each of the these notices did not bear the actual signature of the Collector, but that, in our opinion, was hardly necessary so long as the notices were issued by the Collector under his own authorisation and seal. In the second place, this point is conclusively met by sec. 82 of the Act of 1953 which reads as follows: - "no notice issued under this Act shall be invalid on account of any defect or omission in its form. " The only defect on which reliance is placed in this connection is that each of the notices published in the various wards concerned did not bear the actual signature of the Collector even though, as we have pointed out above, we have it from the Collector's affidavit that he had approved the programme of election and signed the various notices calling upon the various constituencies to go to polls and these were in his office. Conceding, though not admitting, that the notices so issued in the various wards should have been actually signed by the Collector, this is merely a defect or omission in form and not of substance and, therefore, such a defect would be fully cured by S. 82. No other ground of attack was pressed before us. In the result, these applications fail and are hereby dismissed. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs. .;